DCIT, Agra v. Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Delhi

ITSSA 7/AGR/2008 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 720316 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AFFPK7559E
Bench Agra
Appeal Number ITSSA 7/AGR/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, Agra
Respondent Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 25-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 16-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 16-04-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 16-07-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH AGRA BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI P.K. BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.07/AGR/2008 BLOCK PERIOD: 01.04.1996 TO 10.12.2002 DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE VS. SHRI SUNEEL KUM AR AGARWAL AGRA. PROP. SURYA TRADERS R/O. B-9 MOON LIGHT APARTMENT PLOT NO.70 I.P. EXTENSION PATPARGANJ NEW DELHI. (PAN : AFFPK 7559 E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K. MISHRA SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PANKAJ GARGH ADVOCATE ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL A.M.: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 24.04.2008 BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND S OF APPEAL 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS )-II AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.19 49 220/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED STOCK FOUND AT THE TIME OF S EARCH IGNORING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND FINDINGS AND OBSERVAT IONS GIVEN BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 1(I) THAT IN DOING SO LD. CIT (APPEALS)-II AGRA H AS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE PURCHASES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE FACT T HAT THE PURCHASE VOUCHERS AND CHALLANS WERE NOT FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-II AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN REDUCING THE ADDITION OF RS.21 034/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTAGE OF STOCK FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH TO RS.13 290/- IGNORING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF 2 THE CASE AND FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS GIVEN BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO GROUND NO.1 WHICH RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.19 49 220/- ARE THAT THERE HAD BEEN SEARCH IN TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 10.12.2002. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH STOCK OF PEPPERMINT WAS FOUND AT 4785 KGS. WHEREAS THE SEIZED STOCK REGISTER A-2 SHOWS THE STOCK AT 144 KGS. THUS THE RE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF 4641 KGS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THREE CONSIGNMENTS OF 1750 KGS 1250 KGS. AND 1000 KGS. WERE RECEIVED ON 09.12.2002 FROM M/S. PURE MINT PRODUCTS. STOCK REG ISTER WAS WRITTEN UPTO 07.12.2002. THUS ALL THE THREE INVOICES DATED 10.12.2002 AND CHALLAN DAT ED 09.12.2002 WERE NOT WRITTEN. CASH BOOK WAS ALSO FOUND TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN UPTO 05.12.2002 . THE A.O. DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE HE TREATED THE DIFFERENCE OF 4641 K GS. AS UNDISCLOSED PURCHASE OF PEPPERMINT BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE SEARCH AND VALUING THE SAME @ RS.420/- MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.19 49 220/-. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CO NTENDED THAT DURING THE SEARCH THERE WERE 165 DRUMS WEIGHT OF EACH DRUM WAS TAKEN AS 29 KGS. WHI LE THE CAPACITY OF EACH DRUM WAS ONLY 25 KGS. THUS THE ACTUAL CONTENT IN THE DRUMS WERE ON LY 4144 KGS. AND NOT 4785 KGS. THE STOCK REGISTER TALLIED WITH THE ACCOUNTS BOOK IF THE PURC HASES MADE FROM PEPPERMINT ARE INCORPORATED. THE CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSES SEE AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 3. LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE TH E LD. A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE NOTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING OF FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY FILED THE DELIVERY CHALLAN DATED 09.12.2002 BY WHICH THE PEPPERMINT WA S RECEIVED. IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT 3 THE BILLS WILL BE ISSUED ON 10.12.2002 AFTER CONFIR MATION OF THE QUALITY OF THE MATERIAL. THE COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS WERE ALSO FILED. THE GOOD S HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST ISSUE OF ST-35 FORM. THE SELLER IS A REGISTERED DEALER IN DELHI. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE VOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF THE FREIGHT INCURRED. THE AUDITED COPY OF ACCOUNTS IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. PURE MINT PRODUCTS WERE ALSO FILED. THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. THUS HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF 4000 KGS. OF PEPPERMINT IS PROVED. THE CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT WHEN THE INVENTORY WAS INVEN TORISED AT THE TIME THE PERSON WHOSE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT EA CH DRUM CONTAINED ONLY 25 KGS. OF THE MATERIAL. THUS THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 5. LD. D.R. ALTHOUGH VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. BUT NO COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE WHICH MAY COM PEL US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW AS TAKEN BY THE CIT(A). WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.1 STANDS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO THE REDUCTION ON THE ADDI TION OF RS.21 034/- TO RS.13 290/-. 7. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS ADDITION ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS AND TRADING OF SUPARI KATTHA LIME PEPPERMINT AND ELA ICHI. SUPARI LIME AND KATTHA ARE SOLD IN PROCESSED FORM I.E. SUPARI IS SOLD IN CUT-FORM LIM E AND KATTHA ARE SOLD IN POWDER FORM. ON RECONCILIATION OF THE STOCK REGISTER DURING SEARCH THE FOLLOWING STOCK WAS FOUND TO BE SHORT:- SUPARI 1683 KGS. KATTHA 331 KGS. ELAICHI 118 KGS. LIME 605 KGS. 4 8. WHEN COUNTERED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION THAT DURING THE SEARCH THE WEIGHT HAS B EEN TAKEN MERELY ON ESTIMATE BASIS WITHOUT WEIGHING EACH AND EVERY SINGLE BAG. SO FAR THE SUP ARTI AND KATTHA IS CONCERNED IN RESPECT TO ELAICHI IT WAS STATED THAT ELAICHI HAS A TENDENCY T O LOSE EIGHT WHILE IT IS STORED. IN RESPECT OF LIM E IT WAS STATED THAT THE STOCK HAS BEEN TAKEN DURING SEARCH ARBITRARILY. THE STOCK WAS SOLD SUBSEQUENTLY AS PER THE BOOKS AND THERE WAS NO DIFF ERENCE. IF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING STOCK HOW HE COULD HAVE SOLD IT. THE A.O. DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATED THE G.P. @ 8% AND MADE THE ADDITION AT RS.21 034/-. WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE CIT(A) REDUCED THE ADDITION TO RS.13 290/- ACCEPTING THE E XPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE SO FAR IT RELATES TO LIME AND SUPARI. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN OUR OPINION N O INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE SO FAR IT RELATES TO SUPARI AND KATTHA IS CONCERNED. WE ACCORDINGLY AR E OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE WHICH WARRANTS OUR INTERFERENCE AND THEREFORE CONFIRM T HE ORDER OF CIT(A) . 10. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.05.2010) . SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (P.K. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: AGRA DATE: 25 TH MAY 2010. PBN/* 5 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT BY ORDER 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 5. DR ITAT AGRA BENCH AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA TRUE COPY