The ACIT, 2(1), v. M/s Hightech Centre,

ITA 12/IND/2003 | 1997-1998
Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1222714 RSA 2003
Assessee PAN AAYPJ8974A
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITA 12/IND/2003
Duration Of Justice 7 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant The ACIT, 2(1),
Respondent M/s Hightech Centre,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 24-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 24-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 22-12-2009
Next Hearing Date 22-12-2009
Assessment Year 1997-1998
Appeal Filed On 06-01-2003
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA AM ITA NO. 729/IND/03 A.Y. 1998-99 DR. P. C. MANORIA BHOPAL PAN AAYPJ 8974A APPELLANT VS ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOMETAX 2(1) BHOPAL APPELLANT ITA NOS. 763 543 & 544/IND/03 A.YS. 1998-99 1996-97 AND 1997-98 ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOMETAX 2(1) BHOPAL APPELLANT VS DR. P.C. MANORIA BHOPAL RESPONDENT ITA NOS. 12/IND/03 366/IND/04 & 367/IND/04 A.YS. 1997-98 1996-97 & 1998-99 ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOMETAX 2(1) BHOPAL APPELLANT VS M/S HI-TECH CENTRE BHOPAL RESPONDENT 2 ASSESSEE BY SHRI H.P. VERMA AND SHRI M.K. KHARE RESPONDENT BY SHRI K.K. SINGH CIT DR O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH JM THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE RE VENUE AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN ITA NO. 729/IND/03 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR RAISING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GR OUNDS OF APPEAL :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT WH ICH IS ILLEGAL CONTRARY TO FACTS AND LAW VOID AB INITIO AND WAS T HEREFORE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. OTHERWISE ALSO THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES ARE BAD IN LAW. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS AS FOLLOWS :- 1. LEGAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER 2. THE ISSUES GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER 3. NO NEW INQUIRY IS REQUIRED AND ALL FACTS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD. 2. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI H.P. VERMA LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI K.K. SINGH LEARNED CIT DR. AT THE TIME OF HEA RING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS ADDITIONAL GROUNDS O F APPEAL THEREFORE THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMI SSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL O RIGINALLY TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SU STAINING THE ADDITIONS BY WAY 3 OF NOT ACCEPTING THE SOURCES OF FOLLOWING MONEYS FO RMING PART OF CASH IN HAND INSPITE OF THERE BEING CLEAR EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SAME BEYOND ANY DOUBT :- (I) RS.2 50 000/- RELATING TO SHRI SUNIL MANORIA (II) RS. 3 66 400/- RELATING TO SMT. SUMAN MANORIA (III) RS. 90 000/- RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE HIMSEL F. MOREOVER THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN A GROUND THAT IN THE EVENT OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOT AGREEING WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 2.50 LACS AND OF RS. 3 LACS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE I N THE HANDS OF SHRI SUNIL MANORIA AND SMT. SUMAN MANORIA WHO CLAIMED THE ABOV E MONEYS AS BELONGING TO THEM. 4. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH THE SIDES CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS PUT F ORTH BY THEM AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. THE CRUX OF ARGUMEN TS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE STATEMENT OF DR. MANORIA (THE PRESENT ASSE SSEE) WAS RECORDED WHEREIN HE TOLD THAT HE SOLD THE TMT MACHINE ON 1.10.1997 W HEREAS SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 18.2.1998. THE LEARNED COUNSEL INVITE D OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 185 OF THE PAPER BOOK BY CLAIMING THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED ON VARIOUS DATES THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. A LTERNATIVELY IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2.50 LAC AND RS. 3 LAC B ELONGED TO SHRI SUNIL MANORIA AND SMT. SUMAN MANORIA RESPECTIVELY THEREFORE T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO DECLARE THE MONEY IN ITS RETURN WHICH BELONGED T O THESE PERSONS. 4 ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED CIT DR STRONGLY PLE ADED THAT KEEPING MONEY IN ALMIRAH/OFFICIAL CHAMBER BY A GOVERNMENT S ERVANT IS QUITE UNUSUAL WHICH IS ALSO AGAINST THE CONDUCT RULES. IT WAS PO INTED OUT AS TO WHY THE MONEY WAS KEPT IN THE CHAMBER WAS NOT EXPLAINED AND AS TO HOW THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF HI-TECH CENTRE WERE LYING AND FOUND IN THE OFFIC IAL CHAMBER OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS STRONGLY PLEADED THAT RS. 10 LACS WHICH WAS RECEIVED AS ADVANCE MONEY TOWARDS THE SALE OF PROPERTY WAS EVEN ALLOWED BY TH E AO. THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS ARGUED TO BE NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESS EE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS STRONGLY DEFENDED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CA SE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CARDIOLOGY IN GANDHI MEDICAL COLLEGE BHOPAL UNDER THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHEN THE RESIDENTIAL AS A LSO OFFICE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE LOCATED AT HAMIDIA HOSPITAL BHOPAL WERE SEARCHED BY THE OFFICIALS OF LOKAYUKT BHOPAL ON 17TH AND 18 TH FEBRUARY 1998. A SUM OF RS.18 18 388/- WAS FOUND IN THE ALMIRAH KEPT IN THE OFFICE CHAMBER OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS SEIZED . A SUM OF RS. 53 353/- WAS ALSO SEIZED FRO M THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. SOME BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BILLS VOUCHERS AND DOCUMENTS ETC. PERTAINING TO M/S HI-TECH CENTRE 70 MOTIA TALAB BHOPAL WERE ALSO FOUND AT THE OFFICIAL CHAMBER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S HI-TECH CENTRE BHOPAL WERE ALSO SEARCHED BY THE OFFICIALS OF LOKAYUKT BHOPAL. WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.YS. 1996-97 19 97-98 AND 1998-99 BASED ON 5 THE REPORT OF THE LOKAYUKT BHOPAL THE AO HELD THA T M/S. HI-TECH CENTRE BHOPAL WAS A BENAMI PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE AND F OR THE A.YS. 1996-97 1997- 98 AND 1998-99 THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSES SED AT RS. 54 LACS PER ANNUM FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. AS REGARDS CASH OF RS. 18 18 388/- SEIZED FROM THE ALMIRAH OF THE CHAMBER OF THE ASSES SEE THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT OUT OF THE CASH SO SEIZED RS. 2 50 000/- RELATED TO SHRI SUNIL MANORIA YOUNGER BROTHER OF T HE ASSESSEE RS. 3 66 400/- RELATED TO HIS MOTHER SMT. SUMAN MANORIA AND RS.90 000/- WERE FROM HIS PAST SAVINGS. THE AO THEREFORE ADDED RS.7 06 381/- OU T OF THE CASH OF RS. 18 18 381/- SEIZED FROM THE ASSESSEES OFFICIAL CHA MBER AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. HOWEVER THE EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE REGARDING CASH OF RS.11 12 000/- WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO. THE AO AL SO ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES STAND THAT THE CASH OF RS.53 353/- FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTED HIS SAVINGS FROM THE PAST EARN INGS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ADDITIONS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED BY THE AO AT RS. 64 23 789/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNE D INCOME OF RS.1 62 060/- DECLARED ON 29 TH OCTOBER 1998 WHICH WAS REVISED TO RS. 2 69 410/- ON 9.11.2000 BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO LATER ON ISSUED N OTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT BUT THE ASSESSEE RETURNED THE SAME INCOME IN RESPONSE T HERETO. THE AO THEREFORE ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE SA ME FIGURE I.E. AT RS.64 23 789/- 6. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE T HE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THERE 6 IS NO MANDATORY LAW BINDING ON THE ASSESSEE TO KEEP HIS MONEYS IN BANK ONLY AND PROHIBITING HIM FROM HOLDING CASH IN HAND. SMT . SUMAN MANORIA AS WELL AS SUNIL MANORIA HAVE CONFIRMED THE FACT OF GIVING THE AFORESAID MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE ON 17 TH FEBRUARY 1998 BY WAY OF FILING AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 17 TH MAY 2001 BEFORE THE LEARNED AO. AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CONFIRMATIONS OF TWO PARTNERS OF M/S. HI-TECH CENTR E ABOUT HAVING MADE THE PAYMENT OF RS. 3 LACS IN CASH AND RS. 51 000/- THRO UGH CHEQUE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A) THAT SHRI SUNIL MANORIA WAS GOING OUT OF STATION ON 17 TH FEBRUARY 1998 AND SO HE HANDED OVER THE CASH TO HIS BROTHER BETWEEN 8.00 AM AND 9.00 AM ON 17 TH FEBRUARY 1998 AND DR. MANORIA DECIDED TO DEPOSIT THE CASH ON HIS WAY BACK TO HOME IN THE AFTERNOON. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE B ANK DOES NOT OPEN BEFORE 10.00 AM AND AS HE WAS BUSY IN THE HOSPITAL TILL 3. 00 PM HE COULD NOT DEPOSIT THE CASH IN THE BANK ON 17 TH FEBRUARY 1998 AND LEFT THE CASH IN HIS HOSPITAL CHAMBER CONSIDERING THE RISK INVOLVED. REGARDING T HE CASH OF M/S ABHINAV TRADERS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AFTE R THE SEIZURE OF FIRST CASH BOOK WRITTEN UPTO 17 TH FEBRUARY 1998 BY THE LOKAYUKT AUTHORITIES NEW CA SH BOOK WAS STARTED FROM 18 TH FEBRUARY 1998 AND THE AO APPEARS TO HAVE CONFUSED THE TWO CASH BOOK. THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE CASH BOOK FOL IOS WERE THE EXTRACTS OF THE TWO SEPARATE CASH BOOKS AND THIS LED TO ARBITRARY A DDITION OF RS. 2.50 LACS ON THE GROUND THAT CASH BOOK WAS WRITTEN ON HINDI BUT THE NARRATION OF HANDING OVER OF CASH WAS IN ENGLISH. THE CASH BOOK WAS WRITTEN BY SHRI VINOD AGRAWAL 7 ACCOUNTANT WHO WAS IN THE HABIT OF WRITING CASH BO OK IN HINDI BUT ACCORDING TO HIS MOOD AND FANCIES HE HAS WRITTEN FEW NARRATIONS AND ENTRIES IN ENGLISH AS WELL. REGARDING THE MONEY RECEIVED BY SMT. SUMAN MANORIA OF RS. 66 400/- (AS GAS CLAIM) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AMOUN T WAS GIVEN BY HER SONS TO THEIR MOTHER OUT OF LOVE AND AFFECTION AND IT DID N OT REQUIRE ANY WITNESS DOCUMENTATION OR EVIDENCE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED TH AT ACCEPTING PART OF THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH WITH SMT. SUMAN MANORIA AND NO T-ACCEPTING THE OTHER AMOUNTS BY THE AO WAS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE. REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 90 000/- REPRESENTIN G PAST SAVINGS IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- S.NO. DATE OF WITHDRAWAL AMOUNT WITHDRAWAN (IN RUPEES) 1 19.4.1997 5000/- 2 6.5.1997 5000/- 3 1.6.1997 10 000/- 4 23.7.1997 15 000/- 5 22.8.1997 10 000/- 6 24.11.1997 11 000/- IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT TH E ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 34 000/- FROM THE RAILWAYS. THUS THE TOTAL MON EY INCLUDING THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK AND THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM RAILWAYS COMES TO RS. 90 000/-. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS WRONG IN INFERRI NG THAT PROBABILITY OF PERIODICAL CASH RECEIPTS MENTIONED ABOVE REMAINING UNUTILIZED WAS REMOTE AND 8 THIS ASSUMPTION IS NOT BASED ON ANY EVIDENCE OR MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A) THAT ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO IN RE SPONSE TO WHICH THE AO DID NOT BRING ON RECORD ANY NEW FACT AND SIMPLY SUBMITT ED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT ALL THE ASPECTS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AT LENGTH IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF AND FURTHER ELABORATION WAS NOT REQUIRED. IT WAS FU RTHER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT AS SUCH THE AO DID NOT HAVE ANY SAY IN THE MATTER WHICH AMOUNTS TO ADMISSION OF THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE CITED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) PLETHORA OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ACCORDIN G TO WHICH AFTER CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE CONCERNED PERSONS ACCEPTING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE CASH ADDITION U/S 69A CANNOT BE MADE. 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE ALTER NATIVE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE MONEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IF ANY IN THE H ANDS OF SHRI SUNIL MANORIA AND SMT. SUMAN MANORIA (RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE) HELD THAT THE ACCUMULATION OF REMAINING MONEY AS ON 17.2.1998 IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY WITHDRAWALS FROM BANKS ENCASHMENT OF DRAFT OR CHEQUE WITHIN A REASO NABLE PERIOD CONSEQUENTLY THE CASH OF RS.7 06 381/- WAS UNEXPLAINED. IT WAS F URTHER FOUND THAT SINCE THE CASH BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE IT WAS NO T MATERIAL FOR THE AO TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER IT BELONGS TO RELATIVES AS CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE 9 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A WERE INVOKED AND THE ADDI TION OF RS. 7 06 381/- WAS UPHELD AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE US. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AS NARRA TED ABOVE THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.18 18 381 /- WAS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE OFFICIAL CHAMBER OF THE ASSESSEE OUT OF WHICH T HE AMOUNT OF RS.1 12 000/- WAS ACCEPTED TO BE BELONGING TO SMT. SUMAN MANORIA (MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE) AND RS. 10 LACS RECEIVED AS BAYANA FOR SALE OF HOUS E PROPERTY AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.7 06 381/- WAS ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED IN COME BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE ALTERNATIVE S TAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2 50 000/- WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY HIS BROTHER SUNIL MANORIA RS. 3 66 400/- BY SMT. SUMAN MANORIA AND THE REMAIN ING RS. 90 000/- WAS THE OWN MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN THAT FROM THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ITSELF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TAKING THIS PLEA THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2.05 LACS WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY HIS BROTHER SHRI SUNIL MANORIA FOR THE PURPO SE OF DEPOSITING IN THE BANK AND THE AMOUNT IS DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 0.78 LACS WAS CLAIMED TO BE BELONGING TO HIS MOTHER SMT.SUMAN MANORIA AND THE AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED TO BE ACCUMULATED BY HER FRO M VARIOUS SOURCES INCLUDING SALE OF MACHINERY TO M/S HI TECH CENTRE F OR RS.3 51 000/-. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 90 000/-WAS CLAIMED TO BE REPRESENTIN G SAVINGS OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. EVEN THE LEARNED AO EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF BAYANA OF RS. 10 LACS WHICH WAS DULY ACCEPTED BY HIM. THE LD. AO EXAMINED THE C OPY OF CASH BOOK OF SUNIL MANORIA PRODUCED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE 10 WRITTEN UPTO 18.2.1998 WHEREAS THE CASH BOOK IMPOUN DED BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS WRITTEN UPTO 17.2.1998 (PAGE 172 ONLY). THERE IS A FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE PHOTOCOPY OF PAGES OF CAS H BOOK SHOWING ENTRY ON 18.2.1998 IS NEITHER GENUINE NOR RELIABLE. THIS FAC TUAL FINDING WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSEE. NO STATEMENT RECORD ED DURING SEARCH IF ANY WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY EITHER SIDE AND ONL Y COPIES OF THE STATEMENTS RECORDED LATER ON WERE FURNISHED. AS FAR AS THE CLA IM OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.4 78 400/- IS CONCERNED IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.3 51 000/- WAS RECEIVED BY SMT. SUMAN MANORIA ON 1.10.1997 IN CASH AND ONLY RS.51 000/- (OUT OF RS. 3 51 000/-) WAS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE ON 1 0.12.1997. SINCE THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 18.2.1998 THEREFORE IT SEEMS TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT THAT ANY PERSON WILL KEEP THE AMOUNT IN CASH AT THE RESIDENC E WHICH WERE RECEIVED BETWEEN 9.10.1997 TO 3.2.1998 AS SHOWN IN THE TABLE AVAILABLE AT PAGE 7 OF THIS ORDER. EVEN OTHERWISE THE LEARNED AO WHEREVER FOUN D THAT THE AMOUNT WAS GENUINE HE ACCEPTED THE SAME AND RS. 1 12 000/- (O UT OF RS. 4 71 400/-) WAS ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE A O HAS DELIBERATELY MADE THE ADDITION. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 90 000/- WAS CLAIMED TO BE WITHDRAWALS FROM SBI FROM APRIL 1997 TO AUGUST 1997. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT PLAUSIBLE BECAUSE IF HE WAS HAVING THE CASH OF THE WITHDRAWALS WHICH WAS MADE IN ARIL 1997 THEN WHAT WAS THE NEED TO MAKE LATER WITHDRAWALS ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ALREADY HAVING CASH WITH HIM. IN V IEW OF THESE FACTS IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT BECAUSE NO WISE PERSON W ILL KEEP THE UNUTILIZED MONEY 11 WITH HIM/HER AND KEEP ON WITHDRAWING FROM THE BANK. AS FAR AS FILING OF AFFIDAVIT FROM THE RELATIVES IS CONCERNED WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THESE AFFIDAVITS ARE FROM CLOSE RELATIVES THEREFO RE ARE SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS WE HAVE NOT FOUND ANY INFIR MITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THEREFORE THIS APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 9. NOW WE SHALL TAKE APPEALS OF THE REVENU E IN ITA NOS. 763/IND/03 543/IND/03 AND544/IND/03 WHEREIN THE COMMON GROUND RAISED IS THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEA RNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 54 LACS MADE ON SUBSTANTIVE BAS IS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BEING INCOME OF BENAMI CONCERN I.E. M/S HI TECH CENTRE AS THE ASSESSEE WAS THE REAL OWNER AND BENEFICIARY OF M/S HI TECH CENTRE BHOPAL. 10. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A GOVERNMENT DOCTOR WHEN THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AT M/S HI TECH CENTRE AND A FINDING WAS GIVEN BY LOKAYUKTA THAT IT WAS THE BE NAMI PROPERTY OF DR. MANORIA. IT WAS PLEADED THAT DR. MANORIA WAS DIREC TLY/INDIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE AFFAIRS OF M/S HI TECH CENTRE WHEREIN SHRI PAV AN KUMAR JAIN WAS HAVING 80% SHARE. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGES 2 3 AND 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. A PLEA WAS ALSO RAISED THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS OF M/S HI TECH CENTRE WERE FOUND IN THE OFFICE OF DR.P.C. MANORIA. THE A SSESSMENT ORDER WAS DEFENDED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE STRONGLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY CONTENDING THAT THE REMAND RE PORT FROM THE LEARNED AO 12 WAS SOUGHT BY THE CIT(A) AND A JUDICIOUS APPROACH W AS ARRIVED AT BY HIM. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ASSAILED AND THE IMPUGNED ORDE R WAS DEFENDED. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT SMT. SU MAN MANORIA MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PARTNER OF M/S SUMAN DIAGNOSTIC CENTR E BHOPAL WITH OTHER PARTNERS LIKE DR. VIJAY AIYAR AND DR. PRABIR PAL. T HE PARTNERSHIP WAS DISSOLVED IN 1994 AND SHE BECAME THE SOLE PROPRIETOR OF THE C ONCERN. SHE COULD NOT MANAGE IT THEREFORE SHE CLOSED THE BUSINESS WHICH WAS TAKEN OVER AND RUN BY ANOTHER NEW FIRM M/.S HI-TECH CENTRE BHOPAL WITH EFFECT FROM 25.12.1994. DURING HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E POINTED OUT THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 THE LEARNED AO ACCEPTED THE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION BY PARTNERS IN ITS ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 30.6.2000. IT WAS ALSO POINTED THAT DR. MANORIA WAS FULL TIME DOCTOR AT TH E GOVT. HOSPITAL AND THERE IS NO PROOF THAT HE SKIPPED FROM HIS DUTIES AND LOOKED AFTER THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S HI TECH CENTRE. ADMITTEDLY M/S HI TECH CENTRE WAS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM CONSISTING OF DR. PAVAN JAIN DR. VIJAY AIYAR AND DR. PRABIR PAL (PAPER BOOK PAGE 237 TO 240). THE FIRM WAS ALS O REGISTERED. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE FIRM IS ALSO REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF FIRMS WHEREIN NAMES OF THE AFORESAID THREE DOCTORS WAS ALSO MENTIONED AS PARTN ERS (PAPER BOOK 241 TO 243). WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE STATEMENTS OF DR. PAVAN J AIN (PAPER BOOK PAGE 294 QUESTION 7 PAGE 311 (QUESTION 1) PAGE 313 (QUESTI ON 7) AND PAGE 318. THE STATEMENT OF SHRI PRABIR PAL IS AVAILABLE IN THE PA PER BOOK AND SO IS THE CASE OF 13 DR. VIJAY AIYAR. THE INCOME TAX RETURNS WERE REGUL ARLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS IS EVIDENT FROM PAGES 244 TO 294 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM ONLY. PAPER BOOK PAGE 250 (FOR M NO. 2 RETURN OF INCOME) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97) IS DULY SIGNED BY DR. PRABIR PAL. EVEN AFTER SEARCH AND REOPENING ON SUCH BASIS IN THE RESPECTIV E ASSESSMENTS THE FIRM WAS FOUND TO BE GENUINE AND THE SAME IS THE POSITION OF CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION. THE FIRM MAINTAINED REGULAR AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS A ND ALSO MAINTAINED CURRENT ACCOUNT WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA WHICH WAS OPERATED BY PARTNERS OF THE FIRM ONLY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED CERTIFICATE FROM THE BANK (PAGES 3 4 AND 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK PAGES 346 TO 348 IS THE COPY OF BAN K ACCOUNT SHOWING NAMES OF ALL PARTNERS). DURING HEARING IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT MACHINERIES WERE PURCHASED FROM KODI ELCOT MADRAS UNDER HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAPER BOOKS PAGE S 349 AND 350. IN THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1995-96 M/S KO DI ELCOT HAS BEEN SHOWN AS CREDITOR FOR RS. 8 75 000/- AND FOR THE F.Y. 1996-9 7 HIRE CHARGES OF RS. 1 96 000/- HAVE BEEN DEBITED. FOR THE DETAILS OF A SSETS OF THE FIRM (PAGE 361) IT HAS BEEN SIGNED BY TWO PARTNERS. THE ECO MACHINE AN D TMT MACHINES BELONGING TO SUMAN MANORIA WAS GIVEN ON HIRE TO NEW FIRM M/S HI TECH CENTRE (AGREEMENT AT PAGE 212 214). THE PREMISES OF THE FIRM WAS TAKEN ON RENT FROM MR. MOHD.KHAN (PAPER BOOK PAGES 342 TO 34 4) AND THE AGREEMENT IS DULY SIGNED BY PAVAN JAIN AND WITNESSED BY TWO INDE PENDENT WITNESSES. EVEN WHEN THE ASSET WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE OFFICE OF THE LOKAYUKTA PAVAN JAIN 14 APPLIED FOR RELEASE. THE EMPLOYEES WORKING IN HI T ECH CENTRE WERE PAID BY THE FIRM . PAVAN JAIN IN HIS STATEMENT ALSO TOLD THE D ETAILS OF DOCTORS AND EMPLOYEES THEREFORE IT CAN BE SAID THAT HE WAS AW ARE OF THE DAY TO DAY BUSINESS/AFFAIRS OF THE SAID FIRM. ALL THESE GO TO SHOW THAT DR. MANORIA WAS ATLEAST NOT DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH THE FIRM. THE O NLY ALLEGATION REMAINS THAT DURING SEARCH BY THE OFFICE OF LOKAYUKTA BOOKS OF M /S HI TECH CENTRE WERE FOUND AT THE CHAMBER OF DR. MANORIA. IT WAS EXPLAIN ED THAT WHEN SHRI SHOBHARAM WAS TAKING THE BOOKS HE HAD A CHEST PAIN AND IMMEDIATELY CONSULTED THE HEART SPECIALIST AND DUE TO URGENCY HE WAS TAKEN TO GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL AND SINCE DR. MANORIA WAS A KNOWN PERSON THE BOOKS WERE KEPT THERE AND HE FORGOT TO TAKE THE BOOKS FROM HIS CHAMBER AN D LATER ON THE CHAMBER OF DR MANORIA WAS SEALED DUE TO SEARCH. STATEMENTS OF PRI TAM CHOTRANI SHOBHARAM PAVAN JAIN AND OF DR. P.C. MANORIA ARE RELEVANT. 12. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT NO PAPER W RITTEN OR SIGNED BY DR. MANORIA WAS FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF M/S HI TECH CE NTRE. NOW THE QUESTION ARISES (I) WHETHER THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE REVEN UE IS JUSTIFIED AND (II) WHETHER RS. 54 LACS CAN BE SUSTAINED (III) WHETHER THE REPORT OF LOKAYUKTA IS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE ADDITION (IV) WHETHER THE BASIS OF MAKING THE ADDITION ON QUANTUM IS JUSTIFIED? THE OBVIOUS REPLY IS NO BEC AUSE (I) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THERE WAS C ONTROL OF DR. MANORIA OVER THE MANAGEMENT/BUSINESS OF M/S HI TECH CENTRE. 15 (II) M/S HI TECH CENTRE WAS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHI P FIRM CONSISTING OF THREE PAERTNERS NAMELY PAVAN JAIN DR. VIJAY AIYAR AND DR. PRABIR PAL. (III) WITH THE REGISTRAR OF FIRMS THE NAMES OF ONLY ABOVEMENTIONED PARTNERS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED (IV) THE INCOME TAX RETURNS REGULARLY FILED BY THE FIRM ARE SIGNED BY THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTNERS ONLY. (V) M/S HI TECH CENTRE HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN THE STA TUS OF A FIRM (VI) THE SHARE OF PROFIT AND REMUNERATION ETC. HAV E BEEN DULY DISCLOSED BY THE PARTNERS AND THE RETURNS WERE ACCEPTED (VII) THE FIRM DULY MAINTAINS THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS (PAGE 244 TO 292) AND NOT EVEN A SINGLE TRANSACTION WAS MADE WITH THE ASSESSEE (QUESTION 18 AND 19) PAGE 296 OF PAPER BOOK (VIII) THE ACCOUNTS OF THE FIRM MAINTAINED WITH STA TE BANK OF INDIA WERE OPERATED BY PARTNERS OF THE FIRM ONLY (BANK CERTIFI CATE PAGE 345 OF PAPER BOOK) (IX) THE MACHINERIES WERE PURCHASED FROM M/S KODI E LCOT MADRAS UNDER HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT (PAGE 346 TO 348 OF PAPER B OOK). (X) COPY OF APPLICATION FOR OPENING L/C FOR PURCHAS E OF DOPPLER IS DULY SIGNED BY PAVAN JAIN (XI) ECO MACHINES AND TMT MACHINES BELONGING TO SUM AN MANORIA WERE GIVEN ON HIRE TO THE FIRM 16 (XII) PREMISES OF THE FIRM WAS TAKEN ON RENT FROM O NE MOHD. KHAN (AGREEMENT PAGES 342 TO 344) IS DULY SIGNED BY PAVAN JAIN AND WITNESSED BY TWO INDEPENDENT WITNESSES. (XIII) DR. MANORIA WAS SERVING IN THE GOVT. HOSPITA L AT THE RELEVANT TIME. (XIV) THE EMPLOYEES WORKING WITH THE FIRM WERE PAID BY THE FIRM (XV) PAVAN JAIN IN HIS STATEMENT DULY EXPLAINED THE WORKING OF DOCTORS AND EMPLOYEES MEANS HE WAS AWARE OF THE BUSINESS AND HE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION THE NAME OF DR. MANORIA. 13. IF THE ISSUE IS ANALYSED ON THE JUDICIAL SCALE VARIOUS TESTS HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN BY VARIOUS HONBLE COURTS LIKE CIT V. S.P. JAI N (87 ITR 370 (SC) CHANDULAL J. JAISWAL; 103 CTR 38 (GUJ) KESHORAM V . CHETANDAS; 192 ITR 446 (P&H). THE CRUX OF THE TESTS IS THAT THE RELEVANT M ATERIAL HAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THAT IT WAS A BEN AMI PROPERTY OF ANYBODY. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL THE DEPARTMENT IS MERELY RELYIN G UPON THE MATERIAL SUPPLIED BY THE OFFICE OF THE LOKAYUKTA AND NO INDEPENDENT I NQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE AO TO PROVE THAT THE MATERIAL SUPPLIED BY THE OFFICE O F LOKAYUKTA CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT IT IS THE BENAMI PROPERTY OF DR. M ANORIA. THEREFORE IT CAN BE SAID THAT ONUS IS ON THE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH IT S CASE. THIS PROPOSITION IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF RAMADEVI V . M. PRADHAN; 194 ITR 432 (ORISSA). IN THE LIGHT OF THESE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEM ENT AND THE FACTS BEFORE US IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TESTS LAID DOWN BY VARIOUS HONBL E COURTS HAVE NOT BEEN 17 SATISFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS NO OPPORTUNITY WAS G IVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION SO ALLEGED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 14. WE ARE ALSO SUPPOSED TO ANALYSE THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF THE LOKAYUKTA AND ALSO WHETHER THE REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF THE LOKAYUKTA IS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE ADDITION. IT IS SEEN THAT THE REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF THE LOKAYUKTA IS NOT BACKED BY ANY EVIDEN CE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE REAL OWNER OF M/S HI TECH CENTRE OR IT WAS HIS BENAMI PROPERTY. THE REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF THE LOKAYUKTA AND ALSO IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT TO SUBSTANTIATE TH E REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF THE LOKAYUKTA ITSELF IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE ADDI TION. OUR VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF INTERNATION AL FOREST COMPANY V. CIT; 101 ITR 721 (J&K). IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 THE AMOUNT WAS PROTECTIVELY ADDED IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE AND SUBSTANTIVELY IN THE HANDS OF M/S HI TECH CENTRE WH EREAS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1998-99 THE AO MADE THE ADDITION SUBSTANTIVELY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROTECTIVELY IN THE HANDS OF M/ S HI TECH CENTRE. IT GOES TO PROVE THAT EVEN THE AO WAS NOT SURE AS TO WHERE THE ADDITION HAS TO BE MADE. THE STATEMENT OF SHRI PAVAN JAIN WAS RECORDED ON 7 OCCASIONS I.E. 30.3.2000 (P.B. PAGE 311) 22.12.2000 (PAGE 293) 26.12.2000 (PAGE 294 300) 27.12.2000 (PAGE 300 301) 12.1.2001 (PAGE 302 306) 13.1.2001 (PAGE 307 TO 310) 22.3.2002 (PAGE 312 314) AND THEREAFTER HE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT ON 18.3.2002 (PAGE 318 324) AND HE WAS CROSS EXAMINE D BY THE AO ON 22.3.2002 18 (PAPER BOOK 312 314) AND NOTHING ADVERSE WAS FOUN D AND THAT TOO AFTER ALMOST TWO YEARS OF SEARCH. IN HIS STATEMENT DATED 26.12.2 00 (PB PAGE 305) HE HAS CLEARLY STATED (QUESTION 73 AND 74) THAT HE COULD N OT RECALL SUCH AN OLD INCIDENCE DATED 16.2.1998 IN A VERBATIM MANNER. EVEN ON HUMAN PROBABILITY SUCH MINUTE DETAILS MAY NOT BE REMEMBERED AFTER SUCH A LONG TI ME AND IT IS NOT EXPECTED FROM ANY PERSON THAT CONTINUOUS RECORDING OF STATEM ENTS (AS MENTIONED ABOVE) WHETHER ANY PERSON CAN ANSWER FREELY AND INDEPENDEN TLY IN A POSITIVE STATE OF MIND PERHAPS THE REPLY IS NO. SIMILAR IS THE SITUAT ION FOR RECORDING THE STATEMENT OF DR.PRABIR PAL AS RECORDED ON 30.3.200 2.11.2000 8.11.200 AND 20.3.200 (PAGES 325 TO 337 OF PB). IN HIS STATEMENT DR. PRABIR PAL HAS NEVER DENIED OF HIS PARTNERSHIP IN THE FIRM. DR. PRABIR P AL CONTRIBUTED RS. 25 000/- TO THE FIRM AS CAPITAL FROM HIS OWN SAVINGS AND RS. 25 000/- WAS TAKEN AS LOAN FROM MR. GURJAR. THE SOURCE OF MR. GURJAR WAS ALSO INQUIRED INTO AS HIS JOINT FAMILY WAS HAVING 125 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. V ERIFIABLE AUDITED ACCOUNTS WERE DULY MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE WHEREIN NO DEFECT WAS FOUND. THE STATEMENT OF DR. VIJAY AIYAR WAS RECORDED ON 20.10. 2000 (PB PAGE 338 TO 448) AND HIS STATEMENT WAS HIGHLY CONTRADICTORY IN ITSEL F. IF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS ARE ANALYSED DESPITE SOME GREY AREAS IT IS CONCLUSIVE LY NOT PROVED THAT DR. P.C. MANORIA IS INDIRECTLY OWNER OF M/S HI TECH CENTRE B ECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOUND AT ANY STAGE THAT THERE WAS ANY LINK THAT ANY MONEY WAS INVESTED BY DR. MANORIA IN THE SAID CONCERN OR HE WAS HAVING ANY CO NTROL OVER THE BANK ACCOUNTS/FINANCE OF M/S HI TECH CENTRE. REGARDING T HE REPORT OF LOKAYUKTA 19 EVEN THE CIT(A) GWALIOR HAS ADVERSELY COMMENTED U PON VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 10.10.2002 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98) IN THE CASE OF M/S HI TECH CENTRE. THE CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH IS AS UNDER :- THEREFORE IN NUTSHELL IT MAY BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION MADE ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF LOKAYUKT DATED 28.2.1998 HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCES WHATSOEVER AND CONSEQUENTLY PRESENT ORDER IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR LEGS TO STAND ON. THEREFORE THE SAME IS HEREBY QUASHED TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. ALSO SINCE THE IMPUGNED REPORT OF LOKAYUKT IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY OR OTHER EVIDENCES IT IS DIRECTED THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO ASSESS THE APPEALLNTS INCOME OF OTHER YEARS AS WELL UNLESS SUPPORTED BY COGENT MATERIAL. EVEN THE BASIS FOR CALCULATING THE ADDITION OF RS. 54 LACS IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPIN ION THAT PRESUMPTION CANNOT TAKE THE SHAPE OF EVIDENCE HOWSOEVER STRONG IT MAY BE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER (ITA NO. 543/IND/03) HAS EVEN ME NTIONED THAT EVEN THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.1 73 790/- TOO CANNOT BE INCL UDED IN THE HANDS OF DR. MANORIA. THREE STATEMENTS DATED 18.10.2000 22.10.2 001 AND 12.7.2001 WERE RECORDED FROM DR. MANORIA WHEREIN HE HAS CLEARLY DE NIED HAVING ANY RELATION WITH M/S HI TECH CENTRE OR HAVING CONTRIBUTED ANYTH ING TO THE CAPITAL OF M/S HI TECH CENTRE. EVEN THE REPORT OF THE RECEIPT OF R S. 15 000/- PER DAY CALCULATING FOR 365 DAYS FOR THE RECEIPT OF M/S HI TECH CENTRE WHICH COMES TO RS. 54 LACS HAS NO BASIS WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE AO BECAUSE FIRSTLY BOOKS OF 20 ACCOUNTS OF M/S HI TECH CENTRE WERE NOT REJECTED A CCOUNTS OF THE FIRM ARE DULY AUDITED NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT A FIXED AMOUN T OF RS. 15 000/- WAS EARNED DAILY THE TURNOVER WAS NOT VERIFIED BY THE DEPARTM ENT NO BASIS FOR TAKING 365 DAYS IN COMING TO A PARTICULAR AMOUNT NO CREDIT FO R EXPENSES HAS BEEN GIVEN NO COGNIZANCE TAKEN BY THE AO FOR THE INCOME REGULA RLY DISCLOSED BY M/S HI TECH CENTRE IN ITS BOOKS. EVEN OTHERWISE WHEN REGU LAR INCOME WAS ACCEPTED IN THE HANDS OF M/S HI TECH CENTRE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS OF M/S HI TECH CENTRE WAS DONE BY DR. MANORIA. IN VIE W OF THESE FACTS AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ALL THESE THREE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 15. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS. 12/IND/03 366/IND/04 AND 367/IND/04 WHEREIN THE ONLY CONSOLID ATED GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING/QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT IN ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF RS. 54 000/- BY OBSERVING THAT THE AO IGNORED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BY NOT OBSERVING THE SPIRIT OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS ABOVE NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED AS IT WILL MERELY A REPEATATION. THEREFORE THESE THREE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. FINALL8IY APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 729/IND/03 IS DI SMISSED. APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS. 763 543 & 544/ IND/03 AND ITA NOS. 12/IND/03 366/IND/04 & 367/IND/04 ARE ALS O DISMISSED. 21 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 24 TH FEBRUARY 2010. SD SD (V.K. GUPTA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED - 24 TH .02.2010 COPY TO APPELLANT RESPONDENT CIT CIT(A) DR GU ARD FILE *DN/-