Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar
Kamal Kant Puri, Hoshiarpur vs Assessee on 26 June, 2013
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR.
BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No.400(Asr)/2011
Assessment year:2007-08
PAN :ABGPK6742C
Sh. Kamal Kant Puri vs. Asstt. Commr. of Income-tax,
Prop. M/s. Unique Enterprises, Circle, Hoshiarpur.
Hoshiarpur.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by:Sh.Ravish Sud, Advocate
Respondent by:Sh.Tarsem Lal, DR
Date of hearing: 26/06/2013
Date of pronouncement:28/06/2013
ORDER
PER BENCH ;
This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the CIT(A), Jalandhar, dated 29.03.2011 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
"1. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in partly sustaining the assessment framed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. That the CIT(A) brushing aside the material available on 'record' had therein gravely erred in law and facts of the case in 2 enhancing the income of the assessee by an amount of Rs.1,80,000/-.
3. The CIT(A) on the basis of pre mature findings, assumptions, presumptions, surmises and technicalities, therein misconceived and disbelieved the duly substantiated source of cash deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- in the Bank account of the assessee as on 30.03.2007 and therein gravely erred and drew adverse inferences as regards the same.
4. That the CIT(A) had erred in sustaining an addition of Rs.10,98,203/- towards alleged unexplained source of cash utilized towards 'business expenditure' and 'household expenses'.
5. That without prejudice to aforesaid, even otherwise the CIT(A) while drawing adverse inferences as regards the alleged deficit/shortfall in respect of cash utilized towards 'business expenditure', therein gravely erred in failing to appreciate that the completion of 'construction projects' undertaken by the assessee and the expenditure involved therein were not bound by any 'specific year', and the same exceeding the said year could not be ruled out.
6. That the CIT(A) brushing aside the complete details of the 11 'Commercial vehicles' owned and used by assessee in its business had therein most arbitrarily restricted the latters entitlement towards 'depreciation' at an amount of Rs. 1 lac.
7. Any other ground of appeal as may be allowed to be raised at the time of hearing of appeal."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a civil contractor conducting his business in the name of M/s Unique Enterprises, Hoshiarpur. In the return of income, the assessee had estimated his income at Rs. 6,75,670/- @ 8% of the receipt of Rs. 84,45,813/- by invoking the provisions 3 of Section 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, implying that no accounts were maintained by the assessee. Assessment proceedings were initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 and various queries were raised by the A.O. No books of account or supporting sale and purchase bills/expenses vouchers were produced during the assessment proceedings on the ground that these were not maintained. The A.O. proceeded to complete the assessment proceedings based on the assessee's contract receipts, transactions in his bank accounts and household expenses. The assessee was maintaining certain banks accounts in which contract receipts were deposited, though the assessee was found to have some other bank accounts in his own name as well. In the current account no. 000667 with the Capital Local Area Bank, Model Town, Hoshiarpur branch in his name, the assessee was found to have deposited cash amount to Rs. 14,58,000/- on various dates from 02.11.2006 to 30.03.2007 during the relevant previous year. When asked to explain the source of these deposits, the assessee submitted that the same was met out of cash withdrawal to the tune or Rs. 13 lacs made on 28.06.2006 and out of the sale proceeds of a road roller. The A.O. was of the opinion that the time gap of almost five months between the cash withdrawal and the cash deposited was too long to correlate the sale proceeds and the case deposited. He also held that since the assessee had estimated his expenditure at 92% of 4 the contract receipts, only 8% of the receipts were available as profit. In respect of the amount received on sale of road roller, the assessee submitted an affidavit of one Sh. Kuldeep, but the A.O. noted that the affidavit did not mention the date, month or year of the transaction. The source of the sum of Rs. 2.50 lac in the hands of Sh. Kuldeep was also not shown. As per the A.O., the assessee's counsel could not give any further explanation except stating that the assessee had sufficient cash in hands out of the business funds. The A.O. held that since the assessee could not have funds in excess of funds of contract receipts and no day to day accounts to explain the cash flow were maintained, the source of cash deposits was not explained. He added in deposits of Rs. 14,58,000/- to the assessee's total income as unexplained income of the assessee. In the current account no. 000220 in the name of M/s Unique Enterprises with the Capital Local Area, Model Town, Hoshiarpur, the A.O. found that the assessee had made various cash deposits and withdrawals. The withdrawals totalled Rs. 74,40,000/- whereas the cash deposits totalled Rs. 8,20,000/-. As per the A.O., since the assessee had himself claimed that out of the total contract receipts of Rs. 84,45,813/- he was left with only 8% net profit and balance 92% was spent to earn net profit, it had to be held that the assessee had spent 92% of the contract receipts in making cash payments for the work executed under the contracts. 5 Hence, out of the contracts, the A.O. held that the assessee had spent Rs. 77,70,147/- i.e. 92% of the receipts. He, therefore, held that the withdrawals of Rs. 74,40,000/- in his bank account had been spent for meeting the expenditure on contract and that the assessee would not have been left with any other cash to make deposits out of these withdrawals. Rather, as per the A.O., the assessee would required further cash of Rs. 3,30,147/- to meet the expenditure for business needs. The cash deposits totaling to Rs. 8,20,000/- in the bank account was held by the A.O. to have from 8% profit of the assessee from the contract receipts or from unexplained sources. As per the A.O., the assessee would also have to meet his expenditure on household, which were admitted by the assessee to be Rs. 20,000/- per month or Rs. 2,40,000/- for the year. Hence, the A.O. computed that the assessee would, at best, be left with an amount of Rs. 4,35,670/- out of his profits for the year to make deposits in the about account. He held that even the whole of this case was counted towards deposits of Rs. 8,20,000/-, the amount of Rs. 3,84,330/- still remained unexplained. This sum was, therefore, added by the A.O. to the assessee's income. The A.O. further noted deposits totaling Rs. 25,05,000/- the assessee's PNB account no. 3431002101000113 in the name of Unique Enterprises. Out of this, deposit of Rs. 25 lac was claimed to be an account of payment received from M/s Rohan Rajdeep Tollways Ltd. 6 (RR, for short) and Rs. 5,000/- was cash deposit. The cash deposit of Rs. 5,000/- was treated as unexplained by the A.O. since it was held by him that no cash-in-hand was available with the assessee. In respect of the balance deposits of Rs. 25 Lac through credit entries, it was contended by the assessee that these were receipts from RR, a concern for which the assessee was doing contract works. The A.O. noted that the assessee had shown total contract work from RR, at Rs. 84,45,891/- which was accounted for in the bank account no. 000220 with the Capital Local Area Bank. The assessee's contention that the said sum of Rs. 25 Lac was received from RR, was not supported by any evidence. The A.O. also noted that the total credits in the bank accounts in the name of Unique Enterprises was Rs. 1,33,03,578/- from various concerns. Against these receipts, the A.O. noted that the assessee had shown only contract receipts of Rs. 84,45,813/- in the return of income. The A.O. held that in the absence of any accounts, the excess payments credited in the PNB account could not be attributed to payment of last year since the assessee had not shown any debtor or creditor in his returns. Hence, in the absence of any explanation and documentary evidence of the credits totaling to Rs. 25 Lac, the A.O. treated the same as the assessee's unexplained income. The A.O. noticed cash deposits in the assessee's bank account in his name with the Axis Bank account no. 067010100038711 7 totalling Rs. 1,26,000/-. Since the assessee had no other available source of cash, these were added to his total income.Similarly, the A.O. noticed deposits of Rs. 14,500/- in the assessee's bank account with HDFC Bank, Hoshiarpur in his name for which no explanation was submitted. This amount was also added to the assessee's total income.
3. The Ld. counsel for the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) submitted that Income tax return has been filed as per TDS certificate in Form No.16A as in the past. It was submitted that Rs.21,02,900/- and Rs.2,88,174/- on which TDS was not deducted does not appear in Form 16A issued Rohana Rajdeep (RR). Therefore, the same could not be taken while preparing return of income inadvertently and the assessee did not declare 8% on the said receipt while computing income and while filing return of income. The assessee submitted before the ld. CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence in the form of confirmation from RR. It was submitted that the assessee was maintaining several accounts, details of which had been submitted to the AO. It was submitted that conjoint perusal of all the bank accounts should be taken into consideration. It was submitted that the assessee has submitted a cash account from different bank accounts showing the cash received and cash deposits. It was submitted that the even after considering the expenditure/payment pertaining to business and household expenses, the 8 assessee was always was having substantial cash in hand out of which the respective amounts on the said different occasions stood deposited. It was submitted that availability of cash to the tune of 8% being estimation by the A.O. who has failed to take in to account that 92% included in the notional expenses in the form of depreciation which has no bearing on the cash/fund outflow in the hands of the assessee. He submitted the details of the assets i.e. vehicles available at page 6 of CIT(A)'s order. He also submitted that the A.O. has not taken into the expenditure incurred by the assessee drawn on his bank accounts furnished to the A.O. It was also submitted that the AO had rejected the affidavit of Sh. Kuldeep in respect of sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- on sale of a road roller amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- without examining the said purchaser or calling upon the person has been rejected. The confirmation of payments of RR in respect of Rs.25 lacs was not given during the assessment proceedings and therefore, the application for admission of additional evidence has been given under Rule 46A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) passed order dated 27.12.2010 admitting the additional evidence and the A.O. accordingly submitted report with regard to the examination of payments from RR and the assessee's claim was accepted. 9 3.1. As per details submitted by RR following accounts were paid and payable to the assessee during the relevant previous years:
(All figures in Rs.) Particulars Amount TDS Payable Metal Purchase 2102900 ... 2102900 Metal Transport 7583606 169907 7413699 Machinery Hire 288174 ... 288174 charges before 13.07.2006 Machinery Hire 130645 21988 108657 charges after 13.07.2006 Labour charges 731640 16396 715244 10836965 208291 10628674 3.2. The findings of the ld. CIT(A) accordingly vide para 6.2 to 9.1 sustaining the addition of Rs.10,98,203/- and Rs.1,80,000/- over and above the net profit declared by the assessee is reproduced for the sake of clarity as under:
. 6.2. In view of the confirmation from M/s RR which has been verified by the learned A.O., the appellant's contention that the sum of Rs. 25 lacs deposited in its bank account through cheques on different dates was on account of business receipts is accepted. The business receipts from contract by the assessee, as per the confirmation filed and examined by the A.O., thus works out to Rs. 1,08,36,965/- from M/s Rohan Rajdeep. The NP of the assessee @ 3% of the contract receipts works out to Rs. 8,66,952/- as against the NP of Rs. 6,75,670/- declared by the assessee in the return of income. In my opinion, the appellant's contention that only the profit in respect of these contract receipts of Rs. 25 lacs should be added and not the entire contract receipts have merit. Expenditure to earn the income from contract 10 receipts has to be allowed as deduction even when the income is worked out on estimate basis. In view of these findings, the addition of the sum of Rs. 25 lacs as unexplained deposit cannot be sustained. An addition of Rs. 1,91,287/- (Rs. 8,66,952/- less Rs. 6,75,670/-) is sustained on account of the additional receipts from M/s RR, in place of the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the A.O. subject to further discussion below. Ground no. 3 of the appeal is partly allowed.
7. During the course of the appellate proceedings, the ld. AR Sh.
Sandeep Sharma, C.A. was requested to explain the nature of the receipt of Rs. 1,80,000/- by cheque from M/s Star Constructions on 18.05.2006 and to submit as to why this amount not be added as income. The ld. AR submitted that a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- had been paid back to M/s Star Constructions and that this payment was included in the total payment of Rs. 25,95,305/- made by DD/Cheque for construction work. However, the nature of the receipt of Rs. 1,80,000/- has not been explained. I have considered the submissions carefully. The sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- received by the assessee from M/s Star Constructions is one of the payments noted by the A.O. to have been received by the assessee on page 4 of the assessment order, but no confirmation from the party was submitted to the A.O. No confirmation from this party has been submitted during the assessment or appellate proceedings. Hence, I am of the view that since the nature and source of the sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- is not substantiated or explained, this sum should be treated as assessee's income from unexplained sources. It is directed accordingly and the income of the assessee is enhanced to this extent.
8. We may now consider the various additions on account of cash deposits in the other bank accounts of the assessee. The appellant has contested the additions on the follow planks:
(i) Not considering all the bank accounts together;
(ii) Not giving credit for payments made by cheques;
(iii) Not giving credit for deprecation while estimating the availability, of cash; and
(iv) Not believing the affidavit in respect of sale proceeds of road roller.11
8.1. The consolidated cash flow statement submitted by the assessee by considering all the bank accounts together is attached as Annexure 'B' to this order. I think the appellant's contention that all its bank accounts should be considered together to determine the availability of cash is reasonable because there is nothing to show that different bank accounts were being used for entirely different purposes. When cash was being withdrawn from a bank account belonging to the assessee, the said cash would be available for being used by the assessee for his business needs or his personal needs, or for depositing the cash back in the bank account. This contention of the appellant is, therefore, accepted. 8.2 As regards the contention that payment made through cheques should also be considered towards the contract expenses, the claim appears to be reasonable. As per the copies of bank accounts, sum of the DDs are drawn in the names of specific persons, whereas others are drawn to "yourself. A few payments are specifically in the name of petrol pumps, e.g. To "Chadha Fuel Centre". Since there is no evidence or finding by the A.O. in the assessment order about the assessee having made any investments during the relevant previous year, the outgoings by the assessee can reasonably be taken towards the business expenditure of the assessee. Hence, I accept the appellant's contention that the pay orders/DDs prepared from the assessee's bank accounts, including that of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of M/s Star Constructions on 17.05.2006, were spent for the purposes of the assessee's business.
8.3. As regards the claim of benefit for depreciation to be allowed against the cash availability, it is seen that most of the vehicle owned by the assessee are quite old, having been purchased in the year 1997 or 2001. Neither their cost is given nor has the depreciation at the rates prescribed under the Income-tax in respect of these assets been given. Since the vehicles are fairly old, it would be safe to presume that depreciation in respect of these vehicles would be a small percentage of the expenditure before arriving at the net income @ 8%. Hence, in the absence of the particulars of the depreciation, I do not think that much cognizance can be given with respect to the cash availability of the assessee on account of notional expenditure in the 12 form of depreciation. I think and hold that, at best, a benefit of Rs.1,00,000/- may be allowed to the assessee towards availability of cash on account of depreciation included in the net profit rate of 8% during the relevant previous year. The details of the vehicles had been provided during the assessment proceedings.
8.4. As regards the affidavit of Sh. Kuldip Singh stating that he had paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the assessee for purchase of a road roller, it is seen that this explanation was given during the assessment proceedings in respect of the cash deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- on 30.3.2007 in the assessee's bank account no.000667 with the Capital Local Area Bank, Hoshiarpur. The deponent has submitted in the affidavit that he was a contractor by profession, was assessed to income tax ( with PAN supplied ) and that he had purchased a road roller from the assessee for Rs.2,50,000/-. As noted by the AO, the date of making the payment or of purchase of the road roller has not been stated in the affidavit. I do not think that without these particulars the AO was obliged to accept the affidavit, when it is seen that in the return of income the assessee had not shown any capital gains or loss on the sale of the road roller. The assessee has not mentioned details of any asset in this return of income. The assets column in the return form ITR-4 shows the value 'O'. Even if the assessee had assets, as claimed during the assessment proceedings, including in the form of road roller, the least a confirmation in the form of affidavit by the buyer should have contained was the date of the payment and the date of the sale of the road roller. Even when the AO pointed out this lacuna in the assessment order, the appellant has not tried to make it up with a fresh affidavit. Since this is a case of cash receipt by the assessee, he was obliged to prove the date of the transaction with the creditor along with the other requirements of proving a cash credit. I, therefore, hold that the assessee has not proven that the source of Rs.2,50,000/- deposited in his bank account was the receipt on account of sale of road roller on or before 30.3.2007.
9. The availability of cash for depositing in the assessee's bank accounts, noted by the AO in the assessment order, needs to be examined in light of the aforesaid findings regarding higher business receipts as well as payments towards business expenditure by cheque/DD. Since the business receipts have been taken to be 13 Rs.1,08,36,965/-, the expenditure required for earning this income works out to RS.99,70,008/-. Out of this expenditure of Rs.25,95,305/- is accepted to have been made by DD/Cheque, leading to cash expenditure of Rs.73,74,703/-. Giving the benefit of cash availability due to depreciation at Rs.1,00,000/- the net cash requirements for business works out to Rs.72,74,703/-. The assessee has also admittedly incurred household expenditure of Rs.20,000/- per month i.e. Rs.2,40,000/- for the entire year which would need to cash requirement for business and personal use at RS.75,14,703/-. The assessee has, as per page 4 of the assessment order, made cash withdrawals from the banks at RS.74,40,000/-. However, as per the cash flow chart submitted by the assessee (Annexure 'B') the total cash withdrawal from all the bank accounts and that received at site from M/s.Rohan Rajdeep is Rs.87,69,000/-. At the same time the deposits in the bank accounts as per Annexure 'B' is Rs.22,99,500/-. The net availability of cash with the assessee during the year is, therefore, only Rs.64,16,500/-. The represents a cash shortfall of Rs.10,98,203/- the source of which is not explained.
9.1. The shortage in cash on account of the higher requirement of funds for business, even taking into account the payment by cheque/DD was pointed out to Ld. AR Sh. Sandeep Sharma. The Ld. AR submitted that considering the depreciation and sale of road roller, no shortage in cash should remain. He submitted that all the additions made by the AO, other than the 8% net profit on additional contract receipts should be deleted. However, as noted earlier, the claim of availability of cash on account of depreciation has not been quantified by the appellant and in any case, is likely to be quite low. The claim of cash availability on account of sale of road roller has been rejected for reasons discussed earlier. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, the shortage of cash at Rs.10,98,203/-, computed above, in deposit of cash in all the bank accounts and for household expenses is held to have been met out of undisclosed sources and represents unexplained investment and unexplained expenditure by the appellant. Addition of Rs.10,98,203/- made by the AO on account of unexplained deposits in the bank accounts. Ground No. 1, 2 and 4 of appeal are, therefore, partly allowed.
9. In view of the discussion and decisions above, the total income of the assessee works out to Rs.21,45,155/- as under:
14
1. 8% NP on receipts of Rs.1,08,36,965/- Rs.8,66,952/-
from M/s. Rohan Rajdeep
2. Unexplained receipt from M/s. Star Rs.1,80,000/-
Construction
3. Unexplained investment and expenditure Rs.10,98,203/-
Total Rs.21,45,155/-
3.2. The Ld. counsel for the assessee invited our attention with regard to ground No.2 that receipt of Rs.1,80,000/- from M/s. Star Constructions on 18.5.2006, it was explained to the ld. CIT(A) by inviting attention at Bank account available at PB-11 that the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was given to M/s. Star Construction which was received back on 17.5.2006 which is evident from the said bank account. Though no confirmation was received but at the same, the ld. CIT(A) or AO has not doubted payment or refund of the said amount from M/s. Star Construction. At the best authorities below is competent enough to approach M/s. Star Construction and obtain the confirmation which has not been done. The assessee having discharged his onus cannot be subjected to tax on the said amount. Moreover, it was argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Ravish Sud that the ld.
CIT(A) has violated the provisions of section 251(2) of the Act since the ld. CIT(A) has to give reasonable opportunity of being heard by showing cause 15 against such enhancement of the income. Therefore, on legal submissions also, the addition of Rs.1,80,000/- cannot be sustained.
4. As regards ground No.3, the assessee has submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee is having 11 vehicles including 3 rollers which has not been doubted by the ld. CIT(A) and the same having been sold to Sh. Kuldeep Singh who has submitted an affidavit which has not been proved false or Mr. Kuldip Singh has not been examined by the CIT(A) u/s 131 of the Act which power vests with the CIT(A) and not with the assessee. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances receipt of Rs.2,50,000/- cannot be doubted and the ld. CIT(A) prayed to direct the deletion of such addition.
5. As regards ground Nos. 4 to 6, the ld. counsel for the assessee argued that the assessee had estimated income @ 8% on the basis of TDS certificate and therefore, reasonable net profit rate has to be applied in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aggarwal Engg. Co. (2008) 302 CTR 246 wherein it has been held that once the net profit rate has been applied no further addition was called for in respect of unaccounted purchases and introduction of cash in the facts and circumstances of the case.
16
6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of both the authorities below.
7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. As regards ground No.1 & 7, the same are general in nature and therefore, do not require any adjudication. As regards ground No.2, the assessee has submitted the explanation that Rs.1,80,000/- were advanced on 17.5.2006 to M/s. Star Construction which has been received back on 18.5.2006. There is nothing on record that the explanation given by the assessee is false and therefore, enhancement on this account cannot be made u/s 251(2) of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) is required to give show cause notice to the assessee, which in fact has not been given in the present case. The issuance of show cause notice cannot be taken in a routine manner. Though arguments of the ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee are convincing that the explanation given by the assessee has not been rejected by the ld. CIT(A) without bringing any material or evidence or cogent reasoning on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in enhancing the income to Rs.1,80,000/- and therefore, the same is directed to be deleted.
17
8. As regards ground No.3 with regard to sale of a road roller amounting to Rs.2,50,000/-, the assessee has submitted list of all the assets before the ld. CIT(A) which has not been doubted. The assessee has submitted affidavit of Sh. Kuldip Singh filed before Rohan Rajdeep (RR) which has not been proved false and no material placed on record against the assessee. In the facts and circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the explanation given by the assessee of Rs.2,50,000 as sale of Road Roller. Accordingly, the AO is directed to give credit of Rs.2,50,000/- as explanation to the cash deposit of the assessee. Thus, ground No.3 of the assessee is allowed.
9. As regards ground No.4 of the assessee, though the assessee had submitted Income Tax return on estimated basis on the basis of TDS certificate, it has been admitted and is on record as part of the order of the ld. CIT(A) that income declared on estimation basis is not correct since the assessee has submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that inadvertently Rs.25 lacs received from M/s. Rohan Rajdeep (RR) could not be taken into account while computing the income on estimation basis @ 8% of the receipt as per form 16A. Therefore, the arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee that net profit rate application when made, no other addition can be made, does 18 not hold good in the present facts and circumstances of the case for the reason that it is not a case that the A.O. has made net profit rate application in the present case. But the AO has specifically made the addition of the credit entries which remained unexplained over and above what has been declared by the assessee. Therefore, none of the decision relied upon by the assessee can help the assessee. Also before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has submitted cash flow statement and ld. counsel for the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) has agitated and contested the addition on four different grounds i.e. firstly not considering the genuineness of bank accounts together, secondly not giving credit for payments made by cheques, thirdly not to give credit for depreciation and fourthly & finally not to believe the affidavit of sale proceeds of road roller. The Ld. CIT(A) considered all the four aspects of the agitation contested by the ld. counsel for the assessee before him and assessed the cash flow statement, considered all the bank accounts and after giving credit for payment and credit for depreciation has calculated cash short fall of Rs. 10,98,203/- over and above what has been declared by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has not taken into consideration the sale proceeds of the road roller amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- and therefore, the same is now taken into consideration. The cash short fall of Rs.10,98,203/- accordingly comes at Rs.8,48,203/- for which no cogent explanation has been forwarded 19 before the ld. CIT(A) or even before us. In the facts and circumstances, we sustain an addition of Rs.8,48,203/- and accordingly delete the addition of RS.2,50,000/- considering Rs.2,50,000/- as explanation as per findings given hereinabove and as per Annexure-A being the part of the order of Ld. CIT(A). Thus, ground Nos. 4, 5 & 6 are partly allowed.
10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.400(Asr)/2011 is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th June, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/-
(H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 28th June, 2013
/SKR/
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Assessee:Sh. Kamal Kant Puri, Prop. M/s. Unique Enterprises, Hoshiarpur.
2. The ACIT, Circle Hoshiarpur.
3. The CIT(A), Hoshiarpur.
4. The CIT, Hoshiarpur.
5. The SR DR, ITAT, Amritsar.
True copy By order (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench: Amritsar.
20