Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sh. Ramesh Kaila, Chandigarh vs Dcit, Chandigarh on 3 July, 2019
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ "बी", च डीगढ़
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
CHANDIGARH BENCH 'B' , CHANDIGARH
ी संजय गग , याय क सद य एवं ीमती अ नपण
ू ा गु(ता, लेखा सद य
BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.204/Chd/2015
नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2011-12
Sh.Ramesh Kaila, बनाम The D.C.I.T.,
H.No. 1383, Sector 33 C, Central Circle-II,
Chandigarh. Chandigarh.
थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ADOPK1141R
अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent
नधा रती क ओर से/Assessee by: Shri Vineet Krishan, Adv.
राज व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri G.S.Phani Kishore, CIT DR
सन
ु वाई क तार%ख/Date of Hearing : 07.05.2019
उदघोषणा क तार%ख/Date of Pronouncement: 03.07.2019
आदे श/ORDER
Per Anna pur na G upta, Account ant Member Th e p re se n t a pp e a l ha s bee n fi l e d b y the a sse ssee a ga i nst the or de r of the C ommi ssi on e r of I ncome Ta x (A pp e a ls )-3 , Gu rga on [ (i n s ho rt 'C I T( A) '] da t e d 2 7 .1 .2 0 1 5 pa s se d u /s 2 50 ( 6 ) of the I n come Ta x A ct, 19 6 1 ( h e re i n a fte r re fe rre d to a s 'A ct') , r e l a ti ng to a sse s sme n t ye a r 2 01 1 -1 2 . 2 ITA No.204/Chd/2015
A.Y.2011-12
2. Th e a sse sse e ha s r a i se d the fol l ow in g gr ou nd s:
"1. That the order passed under section 250(6) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Central), Gurgaon in Appeal No. 129-C/CIT (A) (C)/GGN/13-14 dated 27.01.2015 is contrary to law and facts of the case.
2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 13,58,500/- made by the Id. Assessing Officer on the basis of backside of Page No.3 of Annexure-I (Party V-5) which is a dumb document. No addition can be made on the basis of a dumb document.
3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 4,50,000/- made by the Id.Assessing Officer on the basis of backside of Page No.4
of Annexure-I (Party V-5) which is a dumb document. No addition can be made on the basis of a dumb document.
4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.15,22,710/- on the basis of backside of Page No.9 of Annexure-3 (Party V-5) which is a dumb document. No addition can be made on the basis of a dumb document.
5. That the appellant craves to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal with the permission of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh."
3. At the out se t itse l f, i t w a s p oi nte d out tha t the so le is sue i n the p re se n t a p pe a l re la te s t o a d d it ion ma d e on a ccou nt of ce r ta in e n tr ie s i n the d oc ume n ts se i ze d d ur i ng the se a r ch , re ma i ni ng u ne x pl a i ne d . Dr a w i ng ou r a tte nti on to the f a ct s of t he ca se i t w a s p oin te d out tha t a s e ar ch & 3 ITA No.204/Chd/2015 A.Y.2011-12 se i z ure o pe r a tion u /s 1 3 2 (1 ) of the Ac t w a s con du ct e d on 30 . 6. 2 0 10 i n V TC gr ou p of ca s e s. Su bs e q u e n tly a sse ssme nt pr oc ee d i ng s we re i ni ti a te d u /s 1 5 3 A o f t he Ac t b y i ss ui ng sta tu tor y n oti ce s. D u r in g the a sse s sme n t p r oce ed i ngs , t he a sse sse e w a s con fr on te d w i th th e p hot ocop ie s of t he s e ize d doc ume nts a n d a s ke d to e xp l a in the c onte nt s o f the s a me . Af te r co nsi de r i ng th e r e p l y of th e a sse s see th e A .O . ma d e a dd i ti on on a c cou nt of e nt rie s in t he fol l ow in g d oc ume n ts re ma in i ng un e x pla i ne d:
D oc umen t No. Page N o. Amou n t of add i ti o n A-1 3 (b ac k side ) Rs.1 3 ,5 8 , 0 0 0 /-
A-1 4 (b ac k side ) Rs. 4 ,5 0 , 00 0 /- A-3 9 Rs.1 5 , 22 , 7 10 /-
4. Th e r e a f te r th e Ld . C ou nse l for t he a ss se s see d rew ou r a tte n ti on to e a ch of th e d oc ume n ts a n d ma de a rg ume n ts i n sup p or t of h i s c on te n ti on t ha t n o a d di ti on o n a cc oun t of e nt rie s con ta i ne d in the se d oc ume nts w a s w a r r a n te d. The Ld. C ou ns e l f or th e a ss se sse e f ir st d re w our a tte ntio n to t he doc ume nts fo rmi n g p a r t of An n e xur e A-1 b e i n g the b a ck s ide of p a g e -3 a n d p a ge -4 , r e p r od uced i n th e a s se s sme n t o rd e r a nd co py of w hi ch w a s a l so fi led b e f ore u s a t pa g e -5 a n d pa g e -4 of t he Pa p e r B o ok d a te d 5. 3 .2 0 1 9 re spe c tive l y as un de r :4 ITA No.204/Chd/2015
A.Y.2011-12 5 ITA No.204/Chd/2015 A.Y.2011-12
5. Re fe rr i ng to the a b ove , Ld . C oun se l for t he a ss e ssee poi n te d out th a t a dd i ti on of R s.13 . 58 l a cs & Rs.4 . 5 l a cs pe r ta ine d to th e e n tr ie s w hi ch a p p e a re d s tr uck of f. It was 6 ITA No.204/Chd/2015 A.Y.2011-12 poi n te d ou t th a t d ur i ng the a ss e ss me n t p ro cee d in gs t he a sse sse e had exp l a in e d each and e ve r y d ocu me n t of An ne x ure A -1 vi d e se ve ra l l e tte rs f i le d . O ur a tt en tio n w a s dr a w n to l e tte r d a te d 6 .3 .2 0 1 3 , p la c e d a t P a p e r B o ok p a ge N o.2 0 , e x pl a i ni ng t he co nte nts o f An ne xure A- 1 a s un d e r :
A N NE X U RE A - 1 P ag e N o s . 1 to 2 T h e s e ar e s o m e ro u g h c al c u l a ti o n s b y M /s S ak s h i E n te r p r i s es an d d o n o t p e r tai n to th e as s e s s e e .
P ag e N o s . 3 to 4 T h e s e p e r tai n to c he q ue p aym e n t by M/s S ak s h i E n te r p r i s e s , M /s S ak s h i Filling S ta ti o n , M /s P un j ab F i l l i n g S ta ti o n an d M / s V e rm a T r an s p o r t C o . to v ar i o u s p ar ti e s , wh i c h h as d u l y b e e n r ef l ec te d i n th e b o o ks o f ac c o u n ts o f r es p ec ti v e f i r ms . T h e s e fi r m s ar e b e i n g as s e s s ed to i n c o m e tax u n d e r f o l l o wi n g PANs:-
N a m e of t h e f ir m s PA N s
1 . M /s S ak s h i E n te r p r i s es AB J F S0 6 4 6 J
2 . M /s S ak s h i F i l l i n g S ta ti o n B A J P S4 9 3 5C 3 . M /s P un j ab F i l l i n g S ta ti o n AA D FV5 3 9 7 G 4 . M /s V e r m a T r an s p o r t C o . AA A FV 8 3 1 1 P Thereafter the contents of letter dated 11.3.2013 placed at paper book page No.29 ,was pointed out to us explaining the entries in Annexure A-1 as under:
AN N EX U R E A- 1 "Page 1-2 These are details of cash withdrawals from Sakshi Enterprises bank account on different dates. Extract of bank account in the books of Sakshi Enterprises is enclosed herewith. In payment entries, Rs 784000 & Rs 50000 have been paid to employes of firm M/s Sakshi Enterprises as imprest for further payments against regular expenses of the firm. Other payments are also business payments made under various heads for 7 ITA No.204/Chd/2015 A.Y.2011-12 regular business operations. The copies of balance sheet of Sakshi Enterprises for the AY 2008-09 to 2011-12 are attached herewith. Page 3-4 These are some cheques payments made by different firms as explained earlier. Extracts of copies of accounts of these firms are being enclosed herewith.
- Cheque of 2 lac was paid by Sakshi Filling Station to Sakshi Enterprises, copy of account attached.
- Cheque of 3 lac was paid by Sakshi Filling Station to Verma Transport Co., copy of account attached.
- Loan of Rs. 4 lac (balance) due from Punjab Filling Station to M/s Sakshi Enterprises (lilac - 7 lac), copy of account attached.
- Cheque of 2.5 lac was paid by Punjab Filling Station to Verma Transport Co, copy of account attached
- Cheque of 15 lac was paid by Sakshi Enterprises to M/s Narain & Co., copy of account attached.
- 1DBI 22L - Balance with IDB1 bank at a particular time in June 2010
- Liability of 9 lac due to Verma Transport Co was cleared out of IDBI Bank, copy of account attached.
- Cheque of 3 lac was paid by Sakshi Enterprises SAIL to Sakshi Filling Station, copy of account attached."
Our attention was also drawn to letter dated 13.3.2013 at Paper Book page No.90 as under:
"In respect to query raised in respect to seized documents Annexure Al-Page 3 to 4, please refer to our earlier replies filed in this regard. As required by your goodself, copies of accounts of already referred firms alongwith copies of relevant bank statements are being enclosed herewith. Relevant portions of documents have been highlighted for your reference please."8 ITA No.204/Chd/2015
A.Y.2011-12
6. The Ld.Counsel for the asssessee thereafter stated that the entries on account of which addition had been made were all entries which were struck off and, therefore, were not in relation to any transaction incurred by the assessee. The Ld.Counsel for the asssessee contended that the said transactions were neither dated, nor their nature evident from the document. Therefore, clearly these were dumb entries/ documents and no addition was warranted on account of them. The Ld.Counsel for the asssessee contended that the said entries had been treated as unexplained expenditure as per section 69C of the Act by the Revenue without any basis since the document showed no description about the nature of the transaction and the Revenue had not found any corroborative evidence which could form the basis for treating it so.
Thereafter our attention was drawn to document A-3, page 9 reproduced in the assessment order at page 7 as under:
9 ITA No.204
204/Chd/2015 A.Y.2011-12 10 ITA No.204/Chd/2015 A.Y.2011-12 With reference to the same the Ld.Counsel for the asssessee submitted that the explanation regarding this document was also submitted alongwith the explanation of all pages of the document A-3 in the letters filed to the A.O. as stated above as under:
Letter dated 06.03.2013 AN N EX U R E A- 3 Page No.9 It appears to be some cash generated out of the sale of diesel and petroleum products, which is deposited in the bank f ro m time to time . Ho we v e r , no description and date has been made as such it is a dumb document.
Letter dated 11.03.2013 AN N EX U R E A- 3 Page No.9 It appears to be some cash generated out of the sale of diesel and petroleum products, which is deposited in the bank f ro m time to time . Ho we v e r , no description and date has been made as such it is a dumb document.
7. The Ld.Counsel for the asssessee submitted that the explanation given by the assessee was substantiated with an entry of Rs.50,000/- reflected in the said document being reflected in the bank 11 ITA No.204/Chd/2015 A.Y.2011-12 statement, reproduced at Paper Book page No42.
Further the Ld.Counsel for the asssessee reiterated his submissions made for the documents in Annexure A-1, as the transaction being undated and the nature not being mentioned, the said document was a dumb document and there was no basis with the Revenue to hold the same as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following case laws for the proposition that before an addition u/s 69C of the Act can be made for unexplained expenditure it has to be established that expenditure has been incurred and the document being a dumb document cannot solely form the basis of addition in the absence of any corroborative evidence:
1. CIT Vs. M/s Khosla Ice & General Mills, in IT A No. 208 of 2011(P&H )
2. M/s Khosla Ice & General Mills Vs. DCIT (Investigation) in IT A No.32/Chand i/2002 (I.T .A.T ., Chandigarh).
3. M/s Jesa R am Vishan Narain Vs. DC IT , in IT A No.585/Chand i/2003 ( I.T .A.T .,Chd.)
4. DC IT Vs. S hri Amarjit Sing h Dhingra, IT (SS)A No.6/Chd/2007 (I.T .A.T., Chd. )
5. ACIT Vs. M/s Brinsar Foods Pvt. Ltd. in IT (SS)A No.47/CHD/2005 (I.T .A.T ., Chd.) 12 ITA No.204/Chd/2015 A.Y.2011-12
8. The Ld.DR on the other hand reiterated the findings of the A.O a nd the CI T(A ) that the a ssessee had given no explanation vis a vis the impugned entries at any stage despite specifically being confronted with the same and despite the fact that admittedly the entries were made by the assessee himself and even struck off by him only. Ld.DR emphasized that the assessee having owned the document ,the onus squarely lay on him to explain the entries and could not be dismissed as dumb documents without any reason just on the whims and fancies of the assessee. Ld.DR contended that in the absence of any explanation given by the assessee, the Revenue was well within its rights to draw adverse inference. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal, 158 ITR 823 (Mad) for the proposition that if the best evidence is not placed before the Court an adverse inference can be drawn against the person who ought to have produced it.
Ld.DR further pointed out that no benefit can be derived by the assessee from the proposition laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Khosla 13 ITA No.204/Chd/2015 A.Y.2011-12 Ice & General Mills(supra) since the said case is distinguishable on facts with the document not having been accepted by the assessee in that case while in the present case the document has been accepted by the a ssessee. Ld .DR pointe d out that the CI T(A) h ad examined each and every entry and thereafter given his findings vis a vis the impugned entries remaining unexplained. Our attention was drawn to the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) at para 5.1 for the addition made on account of unexplained entries in document A-1 as under:
"5.1 I have considered the assessee's submissions and the impugned order. T he seized document is a spiral pad in which the day to day expenditures of the assessee and it business concerns are recorded. T he back of pages 3 and 4 of the document were also f ound to ref lect expenses to the extent of Rs.13,58,500/- and Rs.4,50,000/- respectively. As the assessee neither off ered any explanation nor reconciled the entries with regular books of accoun t expenses, the amounts involved were added u/s 69C af ter invoking the provisions of Sec.292C of the I.T.Act, 1961.
In appeal it was reiterated that th ere could be no explanations for a dumb document con taining no dates signature or nature of transaction, while also contending that the entries were also struck of f. Case laws were quoted to support that additions could not be made on the basis of such dumb documents.14 ITA No.204/Chd/2015
A.Y.2011-12 The f act of the matter is that the document was seized f rom the residence of the assessee. T he assessee has also not denied that the said document (A-1) is a spiral pad containing recording of his day to day expenditures. In other words, he has neither denied the ownership of the pad nor the nature of the entries. So when the obverse entries are not disputed, then how can the entries on the reverse sides be said to be dumb in nature, when the same are clearly decipherable? In the cases cited in support, the documen ts have been disowned by th e assessee which is not the case here.
On a perusal of the scanned copies in the body of the impugned order, it is seen th at the narrations are crisp against which specif ic f igures have been clearly mentioned. Of the seven entries on back of page 3, six have been struck off with a line. T he unstruck entry clearly is SA IL to Sakshi 3L. It transpires that Sakshi Enterprises is a proprietary concern of the assessee and deals with steel- contracts f or handling/transporting of steel f rom dock-yard. In f act the assessee has another proprietary concern styled "Sakshi Filling Station and one of the entries (though has a line drawn over it) notes Punjab to Sakshi Filling Station with the f igure of 22000. Another entry is RINL to Pb 5L.
Sakshi En terprises (R INL) is mentioned in the computation of income f iled by the assessee. T he assessee explained that the business income of Sakshi Enter prise has been determined u/s 44AD. Nothing has been stated in what manner Sakshi Filling Station has been accoun ted f or.
As f or the backside of Page 4, the narrations are brief but clearly iden tif iable, with amounts and dates (in some cases). The AO has considered only the sum of 4.5 L f or which the narration is Cash to Pb Filling. An entry above mentions Pb Filling to Sakshi 4L. The other narrations are Vf lT pn which assessee is a partner), IDB1, Canara Bank and so on.
T he assessee has sough t to brush off the entries as scribbles on dumb documen ts, when in 15 ITA No.204/Chd/2015 A.Y.2011-12 reality the document is a part and parcel of assessee's summary/recording of transactions. It is theref ore crystal clear that assessee has not been able to discharge the onus cast upon him u/s 292C. T hus, the additions u/s 69C of Rs.13,58,500/- and Rs.4,50,000/- are conf irmed f or reasons discussed above. Assessee f ails on these two grounds of appeal.
And to para6.1 for the addition made on account of unexplained entries in document A-3 as under:
6.1 1 have considered the assessee's submissions and the impugned order. T his document is also found to be a spiral pad in which the day to day expenditures of the assessee and its business concerns are recorded. T he total amount of expenses recorded on th is document is Rs.15,22,710/-. As the assessee neither off ered any explanation nor reconciled the entries with regular books of account expenses, the amoun t was added u/s 69C af ter invoking the provisions of Sec. 292C of the I.T . Ac t, 1961 In appeal assessee stuck to the same explanation, reiterating that there could be no explanations f or a dumb document con taining no dates, signature or nature of transaction, wh ile also contending that it was not his hand writing.
Same case la ws were quoted to support that additions could not be made on basis of such dumb documents.
"Here too, the relevant document was seized from the residence of the assessee. T he assessee has also not denied that the said documen t (A-1) is a spiral pad containing recording of his day to day expenditures. In other words, he has neither denied the ownership of the pad no the nature of the entries. So again when the pad and the expenditure entries are not disputed, then how can the arithmetical f igure on the reverse of page 9 be said to be dumb in nature? In the cases cited in support, 16 ITA No.204/Chd/2015 A.Y.2011-12 the documents have been diso wned by the assessee which is not the case here.
On a perusal of the scanned copy on page 7 of the order, the sums mentioned are unambiguous by means of additions and subtrac tions, apart f rom the name Nanda and SKr against which 50000 and 100000 are mentioned. I am af raid assessee's attempt to brush off the entries is not acceptable as it is very unlikely that he is not in the know of the nature of the entries or what the sums represen t. T he entries in the pad represent expenditures so logically the sums at the backside have to be directly related to such transactions. Needless to say the sums leading to the to tal of Rs. 15,22,710/- are all written at the bottom of the page and are also corresponding with the jottings on the page itself. T hus, I am inclined to uphold the action of the AO in placing the onus on the assessee u/s 292C and making the addition u/s 69C in the backdrop of assessee remaining tight-f isted in his response to the document. Theref ore, assessee f ails on this ground."
9. Ld.Counsel for the assessee countered by stating that the date mentioned in document A-3 did not relate to the impugned year and therefore in any case could not be said to relate to the year under consideration. It was further contended that the entries were not in the assesses handwriting.
10. We have heard the rival contentions. The issue before us relates to addition made on account of certain notings/entries in the documents found during search conducted at the assessee's premises. 17 ITA No.204/Chd/2015
A.Y.2011-12
11. As per section 292C of the Act, where any document is found in the possession of a person during search, the presumption is that it belongs to the assessee and the contents thereof are true. There is no dispute vis-à-vis this position of law. The onus, therefore, to explain the contents of the documents found during search rests squarely on the assessee and where the assessee fails to offer any explanation, meaning to the contents of the document have to be given on the basis of surrounding circumstances relating to the said documents. In other words, the documents and its contents have to be read as a whole. Meaning can also be derived from any corroborative material found relating to the contents of the documents. Accordingly, after giving meaning to the document and its contents it is to be seen whether any addition has to be made with respect to the same in the hands of the assessee as per law. A dumb document, as a corollary therefore is one to which no meaning can possibly be ascribed.
12. Applying the above position of law to the facts of the present case, we find that the documents in 18 ITA No.204/Chd/2015 A.Y.2011-12 dispute i.e. document A-1 and A-3 were found at the assessee's premises during search. Further, undeniably the assessee had not denied being in know of the said documents having explained the majority of the contents in the said documents vide its letter filed to the A.O. dated 6.3.2013, 11.3.2013 and 13.3.2013, as reproduced above. It was stated that the document contained cash and bank entries relating to cer tai n fir ms whose na me s fi nd me ntion therei n. Th e said explanation of the assessee has been accepted by the Revenue also. It was only certain contents/entries in the two documents, which were struck off, for which the assessee offered no expenditure and claimed them to be dumb documents/entries, with no date or description of the entry made therein.
13. Considering the fact that majority of the contents of the documents were in the knowledge of the assessee and owned by him as being so, we fail to understand how he could have brushed off the struck off entries as being mere scribblings with their nature and date unknown and thus dumb entries. As rightly pointed out by the Ld.CIT(A) ,the entries were 19 ITA No.204/Chd/2015 A.Y.2011-12 de cip hera ble . The Ld.CI T( A) ha s decip here d the sa me also, which has not been rebutted by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee. It is impossible that a document containing a recording of certain type of transaction by the assessee majorily, would contain scribbling or meaningless notings in between for no rhyme or reason. Undoubtedly, alongwith other entries these struck off entries were also made by the assessee which fact he had not denied and, therefore, when he knew the nature of other entries, he must be fully aware of the nature of these struck off entries also. A document cannot be treated partly as speaking and partly as dumb without giving any basis for the same, and merely on the whims and fancies of the assessee. The assessee has to come up with a plausible explanation for stating that certain entries did not reveal anything or were clearly dumb entries, while admitting the rest to be meaningful. The assessee had correlated the contents of other entries also with entries in the books of account of some firm as mentioned in the letters filed to the A.O. and the entries related to a specified period. Therefore, for the above reasons, we are not in agreement with the 20 ITA No.204/Chd/2015 A.Y.2011-12 contention of the Ld.Counsel for the asssessee that the entries in documents-A-1, backside of pages 3 and 4 of the Paper Book amounting in all to Rs.13,58,500/- and Rs.4,50,000/- respectively were dumb entries whose nature and period was unknown. The reliance placed by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee on various case laws, we find, are of no assistance to the assessee since they are all distinguishable on facts. In the said cases the documents were completely disowned by the assessee, while in the impugned case the assessee has owned the documents, explained majority of its contents and treated only a few entries as dumb.
14. But having said so, we find that the Revenue has treated the same as unexplained expenditure without giving any basis for treating them so. Neither the A.O. nor the CI T( A) has recor ded any f indings vi s-à -vis the nature of the contents of the document-A-1 to this effect, on the basis of which alone they could have arrived at this conclusion, nor there is any finding of any corroborative material or evidence found by them 21 ITA No.204/Chd/2015 A.Y.2011-12 to hold the entries as being in the nature of unexplained expenditure.
15. What is evident, therefore, is that neither the assessee had discharged its onus of explaining the said entries whether dumb/otherwise, nor has the Revenue given any basis for arriving at the conclusions that they were in the nature of une xplained e xpe nditure u/s 69 C of the Act. The re is therefore, we find, no basis for arriving at any conclusion regarding the nature of theses entries. In these circumstances, the only justified course of action, in our view, is to restore the issue back to the A.O. to adjudicate it afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The AO is directed to give a clear finding and basis for arriving at whatever conclusion he arrives at regarding the nature of the impugned contents of the documents and thereafter adjudicate the issue in accordance with law . Th e assessee, is free to sub mi t w hate ver e vidence he considers fit in support of its explanation.
16. Now taking up page No.9 one document A-3, we find that the assessee has owned the document and 22 ITA No.204/Chd/2015 A.Y.2011-12 even given a general description of its as being some cash generated out of sale of diesel and petroleum products, which was deposited in the bank from time to time. The assessee has reiterated this explanation time and again in the letters filed to the A.O. and as not retracted the same. Therefore, the document, in the face of the general explanation of the contents of the same, cannot be treated as dumb document. Having given a general explanation, the assessee cannot now take a 'U' turn and say that it was a dumb document. At the most, the assessee may not be in a position to give a complete explanation regarding the same but he cannot say that the document has no meaning. We therefore reject the assessee's contention vis-à-vis this document also that it was a dumb document.
17. Further as in the case of document A-1 page 3 and 4, backside, the Revenue in the case of this document also has given no basis for arriving at the conclusion that the entries in the document represented unexplained expenditure of the assessee Therefore, as held by us in the case of Annexure-A-1, 23 ITA No.204/Chd/2015 A.Y.2011-12 page 3 and 4, backside in the absence of any explanation vis-à-vis the contents and document both by the assessee and the Revenue, we consider it fit to restore this issue also back to the A.O. to adjudicate the same afresh in accordance with law. Needless to add, the assessee be given due opportunity of hearing and is free to adduce all evidences it wishes to rely upon in support of his contentions.
18. I n e ffe ct , t he ap pe a l of the a ss e s see i s a l l o wed f or sta ti st ic a l p ur p ose s.
O r de r p r o n o u n ce d i n t he O p e n C ou r t .
Sd/- Sd/-
संजय गग अ नपण
ू ा ग(ु ता
(SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA)
याय क सद य/Judicial Member लेखा सद य/Accountant Member
,दनांक /Dated: 03rd July, 2019
*रती*
आदे श क त+ल,प अ-े,षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent
3. आयकर आयु.त/ CIT
4. आयकर आयु.त (अपील)/ The CIT(A)
5. ,वभागीय त न1ध, आयकर अपील%य आ1धकरण, च3डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH
6. गाड फाईल/ Guard File आदे शानस ु ार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar