9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... poration. A search action under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short 'the Act') was carried out by the Department in the premises of the aforesaid company and also at the residential premises of the directors, including the assessee on 10/11/2006. As a consequence, proceedings under section 153A of the Act were initiated by the Assessing Officer for seven assessment years starting from assessment year 2001-02 to 2007-08 and in response, assessee filed returns for each of the said assessment years. In so far as the assessment years 2002-03 to 2005-06 are concerned, the returns so filed have been subject to scrutiny assessments, which were completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 18/12/2008, and for assessment year 2006-07, assessment has been completed under section 143(3) of the Act. In the assessments so finalized, the Assessing Officer made various additions which were carried in appeal before the CIT(A), who has allowed substantial relief. Against the reliefs allowed by the CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal for the captioned assessment years of 2002-03 to 2006-07. The assessee has filed Cross- Objections for assessment years 2002-03 to 2005-06, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t cross-objection preferred by the assessee for assessment year 2002-03, which is merely in support of the order of CIT(A), is rendered infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. 7. Now, we may take up the appeal of the Revenue pertaining to assessment year 2003-04 in ITA No.9216/Mum/2010 and cross objection of the assessee vide C.O.No.180/Mum/2012, 7.1 In this appeal, Revenue has raised the following Grounds of appeal:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT (A) was not Justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 69,28,100/ - made under section 68 of the Act, as unexplained cash credit, claimed to be advances received from customers, by holding that there was no material to doubt assessee's explanation, though the assessee had neither furnished confirmations with PAN details etc., nor produced the party for verification to establish their identity and creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction and thus the assessee had failed to discharge the onus cast upon him under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. "2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case; and in law, the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,28,100 2. Ad-hoc addition of Household Expenses 6,00,000 3. Addition on account of Deemed Dividend under section. 2(22)(e). 14,26,974/- 2. The cross-objector carves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of cross-objection." 7.4 At the time of hearing the Ld. Representative for the assessee submitted that the cross objection involves a point of law and, the Second Ground in the cross-objection has been raised as matter of abundant caution because even otherwise, the same point is subsumed in the Ground of cross objection raised originally. The point sought to be made out by the assessee is that the additions in question are not based on any incriminating material found in the course of the search; and, since the original assessment for the year under consideration does not abate in terms of the Second Proviso to section 153A(1) of the Act, therefore, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (NHAVA SHEVA) Ltd, 374 ITR 645 (Bom), such additions are beyond the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction conferred on the Assessing Officer under section 153A r.w.s. 143 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs itself. It is also pointed out that in the context of the original return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act on 02/12/2003, no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued within the prescribed period and, therefore, such assessment proceedings stood complete and that in any case on the date of search i.e. on 10/11/2006, the assessment for the impugned assessment year of 2003-04 was not pending. The said factual matrix has been canvassed by the assessee to say that assessment for the year under consideration does not abate in terms of the Second Proviso to section 153A(1) of the Act. As a consequence, it is canvassed that the impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer could not have been made in the impugned assessment proceedings as they are not based on any material seized or found during the course of search at the premises of the assessee. 7.7 On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative has pointed out that the proposition being canvassed by the assessee would not apply in a situation where an original assessment has not been finalized under section 143(3) of the Act, and in the present case original assessment has been made under section 143 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed inasmuch as the date for issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act had lapsed in relation to the return originally filed by the assessee under section 139(1) of the Act on 02/12/2003. 7.9 In this context, the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (NHAVA SHEVA) Ltd. (supra) is relevant, whereby the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. & Ors. Vs. DCIT,137 ITD 287(Mum) has been upheld. A pertinent point addressed by the Hon'ble High Court was as to whether the scope of assessment under section 153A of the Act envisages additions, which are otherwise not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. As per Hon'ble High Court, no addition could be made in respect of the assessment that had become final in the event no incriminating material was found during the course of search. The Hon'ble High Court also noticed its earlier judgment in the case of Murali Agro-products Ltd.(supra) and elaborately culled out the scope and ambit of the assessment and reassessment of total income under section 153A(1) of the Act read with the proviso ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earch) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. 7.11 In the above background, now we may examine the manner in which the impugned additions have been made by the Assessing Officer. The first addition is on account of Rs. 69,28,100/- representing advances received from customers, which have been held by the Assessing Officer to be 'unexplained credits' within the meaning of section 68 of the Act. The relevant discussion in the assessment order revea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leted under section 143(1) of the Act. The relevant discussion in the case of Govind Agarwal (supra) is as under:- "Decision of the Tribunal: 9.We have heard both the parties on the legal issue relating to the sustainability or validity of the additions made in the assessments made u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act in respect of completed assessments. 10.The stand of the Revenue is that the first proviso to section 153A empowers the AO to issue notice u/s 153A of the Act in respect of the 6 AYs prior to the assessment year in which the search took place. The relevance of the existence of incriminating material is not provided in the said provisions. As per the revenue there should not be any difference qua the completed assessments and the abated assessments for all six AYs in so far as the powers of the AO is concerned and he is empowered to issue notice u/s 153A and make additions either based in the incriminating material or otherwise. 11.Per contra, the case of the assessee is that the AO may be empowered to issue notices for all the six AYs in view of the cited decisions ie Jai Steel (India) Ltd (supra), Scope (P) Ltd (supra) etc. However, in case of completed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, such assessments or additions are unsustainable in law. 13.For the sake completeness of the assessee, we insert here some of the extracts from relevant judgments and they are: A. [2013 36 taxmann.com 523 (Rajasthan) in the case of Jai Steel (India) vs. ACIT - From Held portion: ....The requirement of assessment or reassessment under the said section has to be read in the context of sections 132 or 132A, inasmuch as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then the question of reassessment of the concluded assessments does not arise, which would require more reiteration and it is only in the context of the abated assessment under second proviso which is required to be assessed. ......From a plain reading of the provision along with the purpose and purport of the said provision, which is intricately linked with search and requisition under sections 132 and 132A, it is apparent that: (a) the assessments or reassessments, which stands abated in terms of second proviso to section 153A, the Assessing Officer acts under his original jurisdiction, for which, assessments have to be made; (b) regarding other cases, the addition to the inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requiring him to furnish the return of income for six years immediately preceding the year of search. The Special Bench further held that in case assessment has abated, the AO retains the original jurisdiction as well as jurisdiction under section 153A for which assessment shall be made for each assessment year separately. Thus in case where assessment has abated the AO can make additions in the assessment, even if no incriminating material has been found. But in other cases the Special Bench held that the assessment under section 153A can be made on the basis of incriminating material which in the context of relevant provisions means books of account and other documents found in the course of search but not produced in the course of original assessment and undisclosed income or property disclosed during the course of search. In the present case, the assessment had been completed under summary scheme under section 143(1) and time limit for issue of notice under section 143(2) had expired on the date of search. Therefore, there was no assessment pending in this case and in such a case there was no question of abatement. Therefore, addition could be made only on the basis of incrimi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tries Ltd (supra) which is relevant for the proposition that the completed assessment may not be disturbed in the absence of any incriminating material specific to the assessee. In fact, all these judgments take spirit from the Special Bench decision in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd (supra), which is relevant for the proposition that the assessment u/s 153A will be made on the basis of incriminating material such as books of accounts, other documents found in the search but not produced in the course of original assessment and undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of the search. 15.We also find that the CIT(A) made a reference to the incriminating material, which yielded disclosure of some undisclosed income. But, on perusal of the documents, we find that the CIT(A) entered into an error zone and the disclosure is only Rs. 5 crores in this case and the same relates to the lands deals. In principle this disclosure has nothing do with the impugned additions u/s 68 or 14A of the Act. In the instant case, specific to the assessee, no incriminating material with the details was referred either in the assessment order or in the order of the CIT (A) for mak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the present Assessing Officer no assessment or reassessment was pending. When no assessment has abated, the question of making any addition or making disallowance which are not based on only material found during the search is bad in law." 16. In these circumstances, we have no doubt about the absence of any seized material which are incriminating in nature to back the additions u/s 68 or 14A o the Act made in the assessment made u/s 153A of the Act for the AY under consideration. Regarding the DVO‟s report gathered during the search action, we find that the report suffers from certain deficiencies qua cost of construction of residential property and the land obtained thereto. The said report constitutes an opinion of the third party which cannot be used by the AO for making additions and such additions, if any, cannot be sustained legally. As such, we find that the AO has not used the said report of the DVO also for making additions of Rs. 31,33,007/-, the difference between accounted amount of Rs. 46,13,007/-, claimed as the amount spent on construction of house and acquisition of land as on 31.3.2002 minus Rs. Rs. 14.8 lakhs, the investment made on the land pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is unsustainable even in a case where the original assessment on the date of search stood completed under section 143(1) of the Act, thereby resulting in non-abatement of such assessment in terms of the Second Proviso to section 153A(1) of the Act. Notably, the Tribunal has referred to various decisions, including the judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) (supra). Therefore, the plea of the Ld. Departmental Representative is rejected in view of the aforesaid precedent. 7.14 In conclusion, by following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava-Sheva) Ltd. (supra) and that of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla(supra), we hold that the impugned additions could not have been made in the assessment finalized under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(1) of the Act considering the absence of any incriminating material having been found in the course of search qua the impugned additions and the original assessment not having abated in terms of Second Proviso to section 153A(1) of the Act. As a consequence, the Ground raised by the assessee in its cross- objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s household expenses and contribution, if any, by other family members for scrutiny particularly when the personal withdrawals shown by the assessee were very meager." "4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,50,89,124/- made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act by holding that the transaction were not by way of loan or borrowing and were for supply of goods and repaid in kind without appreciating that the assessee had not adduced any evidence before the Assessing Officer in this regard and hence, the CIT(A) erred in accepting the additional evidence in contravention of the rule 46A of I T Rules, 1962" "5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT (A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 35,44,18,832/ - made u/s 68 of the Act by holding that that the addition made on a/c of the progressive peak balance relating to unexplained sundry creditors was not sustainable ignoring his own conclusion that the assessee was not reporting true and correct state of affairs particularly when assessee had no delivery details, lorry receipts and the alleged creditors had admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the assessment order. Quite clearly, the entire discussion in the assessment order does not refer to any material found during the course of search, leave alone any incriminating material, in order to support the impugned additions. Therefore, it is quite clear that the additions are not based on any seized material found during the course of search at the premises of the assessee and, therefore, following our discussion in the earlier paras for assessment year 2003-04(supra), herein also such additions are held to be beyond the scope and ambit contemplated under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. The facts and circumstances in the instant year are identical to those considered by us in assessment year 2003-04, except to the extent of the heads of additions and the amount of additions being different. Under these circumstances, in our view, our decision in the Ground in the cross- objection of the assessee for assessment year 2003-04(supra) applies mutatis mutandis in this year too. As a consequence, we hereby affirm the ultimate conclusion of the CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid five additions, albeit on a different ground. 9.4 As a consequence, whereas the cross objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the A.O. for examination and particularly when the parties in their original statement recorded u/s 131 had denied the transaction of any sale of goods to the assessee and also some of them have declared commission income only on the amount of accommodation entries of purchase/sale ". 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,14,45,387/- made u/s 68 of the Act, as unexplained cash credit, claimed to be advance received from customers, by holding that the addition was uncalled for, without appreciating that assessee had neither furnished the confirmations with PAN details etc., nor produced the parties for verification to establish their identity and creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction and thus the assessee had failed to discharge the onus cast upon him under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. 6. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT (A) was not justified in deleting the addition made u/s 69B of the Act of amount of Rs. 5,05,39,000/-, by treating the difference between the cost paid by others and the cost to the assessee in respect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has erred in sustaining, in part, the addition made by the assessing officer on the basis of maximum credit standing in the accounts of the Sundry Creditors of Rs. 76,50,46,685/- u/s. 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs. 11.76/- crores after applying the Gross Profit rate of 6.5% on the sales of Rs. 430.94/- crores. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in upholding the interest charged by the assessing officer under the provisions of section 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in not deciding the additional ground of appeal raised by the appellant. 4. That each of the grounds of appeal enumerated above is without prejudice to and independent of one another. 5. That the Appellant craves leave to reserve to himself the right to add, alter or amend any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing and to produce such further evidence, documents and papers in support of its claim as may be necessary." 10.2 In the cross-objection, assessee has raised a ground which is iden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concerned, it is quite clear the same are not based on only material seized during the course of search at the premises of the assessee; therefore, following the discussion in the earlier paras for assessment year 2003-04(supra), herein also we hold that such additions are beyond the scope and ambit contemplated under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, and our decision in the cross-objection of the assessee for assessment year 2003-04 applies mutatis mutandis in this year too, qua the additions enumerated by us in item Nos.(i) to (iv), (vi) and (vii) referred above. As a consequence, we hereby affirm the ultimate conclusion of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions enumerated at item Nos. (i) to (iv),(vi) and (vii) above, albeit on a different ground. Further, the ground raised by the assessee in its cross-appeal relating to sustenance of a part addition by the CIT(A) in relation to item No.(vi) above is also allowed, because the entire addition in this context made by the Assessing Officer is held to be untenable by us while adjudicating the issue raised in the crossobjection. 10.6 Thus, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.638/Mum/2011 as well as C.O. No.182/Mum/2010 of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) infers that the document reflects transaction between Mr. Bharat G. Shah and Mr. Suresh Agarwal, as the document was found in the possession of Bharat G. Shah. Under these circumstances, CIT(A) has deleted the addition in the hands of the assessee. 11.4 Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative pointed out that the employee from whom the impugned loose papers were found is a trusted employee of the assessee and the notings in the seized paper showed that it pertain to the assessee. It was, therefore, contended that the addition has been wrongly deleted by the CIT(A). 11.5 On the other hand, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition as there was no material to link the said seized document with the transactions undertaken by the assessee with Mr. Suresh Agarwal, which were duly accounted for in the account books. 11.6 We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Quite clearly the seized paper in question was found from the premises of Mr. Bharat G. Shah, who is an employee of the assessee. Therefore, the primary onus was on Mr. Bharat G. Shah to explain the contents of the document so as to justify the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 of the Act without-appreciating that the assessee did not produce books of accounts, bills, vouchers before the A.O. for examination and particularly when the alleged creditors had in their original statement recorded u/s 131 had denied the transaction of any sale of goods to the assessee and also some of them have declared commission income only on the amount of accommodation entries of purchase/sale". 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT (A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1, 51,00,000/ - made u/s 68 of the Act, as unexplained cash credit, claimed to be advances received from customers, by holding that there was no material to doubt assessee's explanation, though the assessee had neither furnished confirmations with PAN details etc., nor produced the party for verification to establish their identity and creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction and thus the assessee had failed to discharge the onus cast upon him under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT (A) was not justified in deleting the addition made of Rs. 30,00,000/ - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at it is purely an adhoc addition. 12.2 In our view, the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be affirmed as there is no evidence regarding unaccounted household expenses found during the course of search. The CIT(A) further notes that the Assessing Officer has not considered the number of family members and the individual withdrawals made by them. None of the aforesaid findings of the CIT(A) have been negated by the Revenue before us and, therefore, we hereby uphold his decision of deleting the impugned addition. Thus, on this aspect Revenue fails. 13. In so far as, the Grounds No.2 to 4 in the appeal of the Revenue and the Ground No.1 in the appeal of the assessee are concerned, they arise out of a singular addition of Rs. 24,03,56,882/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking section 68 of the Act. Since the said crossgrounds relate to the same issue, they are being taken up together. 13.1 As noted earlier, assessee is carrying on the business of trading in various steel products under the name and style of proprietary concern M/s. Gupta Steel Corporation. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer considered the maximum credit balance standing in the names o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound, the Revenue is in appeal, challenging the action of the CIT(A) in holding that there was no justification for the addition of Rs. 24,03,56,882/- made under section 68 of the Act, whereas the assessee is in appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) in retaining an addition of Rs. 10.96 crores to the trading results. 13.3 In the course of hearing, the Ld. Departmental Representative pointed out that the CIT(A) had failed to appreciate the stand of the Assessing Officer, wherein it has been brought out that in the original statement of the creditors recorded by the Department, such creditors had initially denied supply of goods and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in treating such creditors as unexplained. 13.4 On the other hand, Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that the CIT(A) made no mistake in setting-aside the action of the Assessing Officer because there was no material adverse with respect to the seven parties in question. In this context, the Ld. Representative for the assessee referred to Page-18 of the Paper Book, wherein for each of the eight parties, it has been narrated as to how the Assessing Officer was wrong in inferring that the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the same was forwarded to the A.O. The party appeared before A.O. in remand proceedings and confirmed the transaction. 4 Offshore Industrial Const. (P.)Ltd. 29,315,674 The addition was made without raising any specific query for this party. No summons has been issued by the A.O. The Assessee has paid the entire outstanding amount in subsequent year. The assessee has filed confirmation of party with PAN before the CIT(A) and the same was forwarded to the A.O. 5 Balaji Trading Co. 14,984,883 AO has made addition of closing outstanding balance of Rs. 1,49,84,883/- ignoring the fact that there was an opening debit balance of Rs. 4,23,67,975/- on account of sales made to the party which has been accepted in the previous year relevant to A.Y.2006-07. No summons has been issued by the A.O. The Assessee has paid to the party Rs. 1.45 Crs and received discount of Rs. 4.84 Lacs in subsequent year. The assessee has filed confirmation of party with PAN before the CIT(A) and the same was forwarded to the A.O. 6 N.Mohanlal & Co. 52,781,812 No summons has been issued by the A.O. The Assessee has paid the entire outstanding amount in subsequent year. The assessee has fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchases are bogus then the corresponding sales has also to be treated as bogus. The AR of the appellant further emphasized that once the purchased are allowed as genuine then how come the outstanding balance can be disallowed and added to the income while the appellant is following mercantile system of accounting. If the appellant has to follow the methodology as adopted by the AO then the same should be allowed in the year of payment. 49. Considering the submission made, I agree that where both purchases and sales parties have been admitted as genuine then it is not correct to doubt the progressive balance of the said party as bogus particularly when the sundry creditors have appeared before the AO during the remand proceedings and have admitted of having supplied the goods and also received the payment. The concept of peak or initial investment would apply in those cases, where the rotation of the funds is identified and there is some cash withdrawn at some stage. However, in .the instant case, no such evidence is available. There is also no evidence, that wherever even if some cash is withdrawn this cash is routed to the appellant." 50. After perusing the assessment order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct because what is expected to be assessed under section 68 of the Act are the particular credits which are found to be unexplained. 13.7 It is also emerging that the action of Assessing Officer is based on the verification carried out from seven parties involved in purchase transactions over various assessment years, and not in relation to the transactions carried out specifically in the instant assessment year. In fact, the CIT(A) records out of the 169 parties who were alleged to have issued accommodation bills, only 7 were examined by the Department and the addition is made on that basis. Quite clearly, the Assessing Officer proceeded to consider the aforesaid 8 creditors' maximum balance during the year as unexplained without recording an adverse finding with regard to their transactions for the year under consideration. Even with regard to those 7 parties who admitted initially to have undertaken accommodation transactions, 6 of them retracted their statements by filing affidavits and during the course of remand proceedings directed by the CIT(A), Assessing Officer summoned such 6 parties who admitted to have sold goods to the assessee. We find that after such retraction by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee. For this reason, he had made addition to the trading results. 13.10 On this aspect, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that so far as the instant assessment year is concerned, the statement of Mrs. Mehrunisa Husseini has no relevance because no transaction has been carried out by the assessee with the said concern during the year under consideration. Secondly, it is canvassed on an alternative basis that the adoption of gross profit @ 6.5% by the CIT(A) is unreasonable and in any case the CIT(A) has erred in applying the G.P at 6.5% on the entire sales of the assessee. 13.11 We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In our considered opinion, the addition to the trading results made by the CIT(A) is based on conjectures and surmises, in as much as, the statement of Mrs. Mehrunisa Husseini, relied upon by him is not relevant for the instant year. Secondly, even out of eight creditors, whose maximum balance was considered unexplained, the statement of only one party i.e. M/s. Nisha Enterprises was out of the statement of seven parties recorded by the Assessing Officer. Even on this aspect, we find that the said concern retracted it's initial statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
