ASSTT.C,I,.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD., NAGPUR

1 "* ; Trin {741 {75&4S5/NAG/ZO14 {..Nos 1,[2 & 13/NAG/20l4 {ssnsMm nt YC-lSZUU7-IXtix 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI P, K. BANSAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH; JUDICIAL MEMBER LIA Nos 374_375.& 455/NAG/2014 Assessment_years;2007-Q8to 2009-10 A.CIT, Circle-2(3), Nagpur. Vs. Mfs Bajaj Steel Industries Ltd_ 539/540 Road; Imambada Road, Nagpur. PAN:AAACB 5340 H (Respondent) (Appellant) CQ Nos.L112 & 131N4G22QL4 (WLLA Nos 374325 & 455NNAGIQ14} Assessment_years,2007-08 to 2009-10 Ms Bajaj Steel Industries Ltd_ Vs; ACI.T. 539/540 Road, Imambada Road, Circle-2(3), Nagpur. Nagpur. PAN:AAACB 5340.H (Qbjector) (Respondent) Revenue by Assessee by Date of hearing Date of pronouncement Shri Geetesh Kumar; D,R: Shri_Rajesh Loya, CA 21/11/2017 23/11/2017 ORDER PER P_K_BANSAL_VP AIl these appeals as well as the Cross Objections have been filed by the Revenue and the assessee against the respective orders of the CIT(A)- III, Nagpur all dated 28/04/2014 relating to assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10, 2 In the assessment year 2007-08 to 200g-10 the Revenue has taken the common grounds of appeal except the change in figure in ground No. !1430.7! 16:/2(14 ( kw> 1-& ' ; 16;/2u14 ycaiZuO7 [923 )9-[ () lsn >'ilt F0 in place f Rs.85,42,957/ Rs, 1,56,55,600/- be read In 1 In ground No, 1 2009-10, The Revenue has taken the following grounds assessment vear pf appeal: 1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case &d in the Ld. CIT(A} erred in deleting the addition law, whether af Rs.85,42,975/. made by the Assessing Officer towards undisclosed income in the form of unrecorded sales: ought to have appreciated the fact 2 The learned CIT(A) that if the amounts are discounts to be received by the then in Page Nos 127, 128 & 129 of the seized {tetotersi_ Item '13 of Annexure-B; they would have been written paid" and not a5 "amounts to be as "amounts to be received". On the facts ad in the circumstances of the case and In 3 whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the amounts Ja8 disctetnts thebe received by the customers, though In the steuvoices, the discounts had already been Ceducted amount; which clearly indicates that from the invoice nothing more i5 payable to the customers. 4 On the facts ad in the circumstances of te case ad in Iaw; Whether the Ld; CIT(A) erred in ignoring the evidencf 126 of Item No. 13 of in the seized material at Page No. from Col. No. 4, wherein several Annexure-B 25 seen amounts were shown a5 actually received by the assessee, which were not recorded in the books of accounts. On the Facts and in the circumstances of the case and in 5 law, whether the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that; in general practice; discount i5 reduced from te invoice amount; but it is not passed on to the customer in the form of cash. The Cross Objections filed by the assessee in each of the assessment 3 to the orders of the CIT(A) in respect of the ground vears are supportive taken by the Revenue in its appeals In each of the assessment Years. that there has been search & The facts of the case; in brief, are 4_ U/s 13201) of the L.T, Act at the business premises of the seizure action I.T Nus {7:37j845S/NAG/ZUJA bm 51 (11,m /1. 12 & !3/NAG/2]4 A-s/nc } ys:2807.CX Tsp 2O0y-]D assessee group 35 well a5 residential premises Qf the Directors on 13/08/2008, During the course of search operation various items of books of documents, jewellery and cash were found and seized_ In account; there Df notice u/s 1534 Was issued for each of the consequence assessment years on 14/05/2009 but the assessee did not file any return: The Assessing Officer , therefore, went On completing the assessment: Loose papers (7 pages in item No; 13) which pertain to the period from June 2008 to July 2008 were found and seized from the premises of Shri Ashish Bajaj; Director of the assessee company: The assessee explained that these contain the record of discounts provided to the customers on sale of low quality master batches which are categorized a5 X category material. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the assessee but took the view that the discount referred in the impugned seized document and invoices allowed to the customers is in fact the amount collected in cash and which is not recorded in the books of account; Accordingly, the Assessing Officer estimated the unrecorded income on the basis of material found for the month of June ad July 2008 for the assessment years 2007 - 08, 2008-09 and 200g-10 and treated the sales as unrecorded sales in the case of the parties whose names are appearing in the seized documents; Accordingly addition of Rs.85,42,975/-, Rs.1,56,55,600/- and Rs.1,l5,64,750/- on account of undisclosed income in the form of unrecorded cash sales was made for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008- 09 and 2009-10 respectively. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A): In the assessment year 2009-10 a addition Of Rs.29,96,942/- and Rs.1,35,372/- on account of undisclosed income from the sale of the waste and sale of the paper bag was also made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the statement of Shri Chandra Prakash Jijani, proprietor of MJs Jijani Waste Paper Industries but no addition was made on this account in the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A): The CIT(A) deleted the additions The ground Nos: 1 1.Ncux.37+1,.704 |3.,NAl_Hf| 00)Noslj 12 & 1J7846/20114 {vsssmemys2{H7-I; 2n04 {{ 2007-08 and 2008-09 while ground No. 1 & 2 in to 5 in assessment Year 2009-10 are common and relate to the deletion of addition assessment year made by the Assessing Officer towards the undisclosed income in the form facts relating to these additions are that of unrecorded sales, The been seized from the residence of Shri Ashish following documents have 126, 125, 124 ad 120 of Item No 13 of loose bundle of Bajaj being pages Annexure-B: Total amount to be received in the month of June 2008 CR Payment Dalance Bal, Adv af thiel Quantity Paynent Paymiznt Receipt 53 Name balance May 08F CR to be recerved date No panty balance received Tox Jure' 200k X-grade material 30.7,08 NIL Enlt 64,00 32000 3200o0 Kava Indore Matenal returned 33 M47 @Rs.,5000}- prt, 7170000) an 09.7,.08) Abhinandan Pierg eck__ia 2OSQ1Q 14.7 08 40q00 33,0QQ 16500Q Klene Materia returned 33 MT @Kks SUU0i- pmt_ (17000} 48,000 24Q0Q0) 24008J 21.7.08 Agrasen Ent, NIC 85000 Bright 32.QQ 16Cc00 packagug_ 29.7.08 NIL 17,QQ 35c00 BSOC0 United Chcmicals Bangalore_ 29,7.08 NIL 17,Q0Q 85000 85000 Hanuman Polypiack Bang= 8500Q MIL 17.00D 8500Q 17oogu 31.7.08 Chakrapani Vyapar Portdi 21.7.08 NIL Ashok Poly 55_000 27500q Z7s00a Laninatorg 418010 121800 Govardhar} 16.QOG 800p (superpack Sikvasa) 21.07,08 3500 NIL Plastic 3.500 17500 14000 Dimplie Nagpu. 3s0q0 2i.7.08 350 MIL 12 Superpack Howrah Non Primg Grade_Matcrials 03.7.08 NIL A-one Plastics 10.QQ0 BQQQQ 80DQQ Nagpur 10*8QQ0) 1z8000 2 Kavita Ent- 16.00 12B000 Jndore (1G-80QQ} 7i0C0 31.7,08 NIL Agrasen Ent: 9,Q00 7z000 (2*30QQ} 3500 286800 49480Q 337.50Q ' f 792500_ 1581000 TOTAL T4 Nos37.4/*X S5/NAG;ZOMA 0){ux~-* 1J/NA6/2014 lxs+'GSMIL'I ;"4rs',21J/7-('8 tx} 20HCH4)- 14) 93 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RECEIVED IN THE MONTH QF JULY 2008 Nax e cf the Qty Payner} Paymem Recd, CR Paymeni BAL BALADY Party t0 je Receled Dt Aalance MAY 08 ANC CR received BALANCC Tcr July 2008 XGrade Material Kavlla 16.{J00 SQUOQ 8QQQQ Enterprises lndore_ Klene pak 17.000 85000 8500Q Ltd, Agrasen 4B,QQC 2400C 240Q00 Enterprises Rright 5.850 49250 245QQ0 294250 Fackaging United 34000 1Zc00O 170000 Chernicals Bangalore Hanuman 10,0C0 SjOQO 50Co0 Pplysack Benk Chakrzpani 7.DOQ 85QQQ 850QQ Vyapai Pondi Ashoka Poly 5J.O0 265000 2650Q0 Lannators Govardhan 41800 41800 (Supcrpack- Sitvasa} Cclcr Systenis 3,0QQ 15000 1s000 Kanpur 24.00J 12GCQ0 1Z0Q0 Electroing Plast Chennai Non Prime Grade Materials 128C00 1Z8Q00 Kzvlta Entcrprises [ndore {16*8000)_ D,R, 4.0DQ 32000 32000 Folymers, Hyderabad (4*BQQQ} Agrasen 47.000 376Q0Q 376000 Enterprises {4Z.B00Q} SkS NO_ 11 12 2 Total 282.85 156725 414800 198205 SR NO INVND NS/08C6 INW DI; 4/7/08 PARTYNAME Ashoka Poiylaniatcrs Barcilly Ashoka Drlylaminators Barelliy GRADE QT(KGS TOTAL Plast 150Q0 White-* Plast 3000 'hite Blue -X Plast 2Qoou Whte-X Plast 15000 530Q0 #hite X Plast 70oQ white-X 2 NSO807 477/08 NS/C963 28/7/08 Ashirka Palylaminators Barellly Ashcka Folylamiiatrrs Bareilly Chakrapani Yxapar- Pondichcrry NS/0964 28/7/08 N5/0975 30/7708 1A.Nos.374,375 &453/~A6Z0!A 80) Nos,]1, 42 & 13/NA6/2011 A+6;"5SM16'l{ yel/s:2007-U8 tv 2(09-1(1 74 (Iikrapani vyapar_ Past Knricichen Ciear X Cooun Systens Plast {PR Polyplax } whtc-Y 0,RPolymers-Hyderatad Non-[rinIc Grade Electro Engolast-Chennai Plast Stwfi X Electra Ergplast Chelal PiaSt Stwff- X Hanunan Polysack & Plast Xutc_ pangalprg Wwhite-X Kavia Enterprises Flast (Narmada_Extrusion) Whte-X_ Klerie Park Ltd. Plast Bangalnre (Cannerghata) wvhite Frenium-X Shri Agrasen Enterprises Plast (V.M Fxtrusion) Whitc_%_ Snri Agraspn Enterprists Plast Stift- {V M Extrusicn) Shri Agraser; triterptises Plast Stxff- (YM Extrusicn) Snri Agraser; Enterprises Plasi Stiff- (V:MExtusicn) Shixi Agraser Enterprises Nor-prirtie Raipur Grade 1OQGQ 17CCQ NS-Q/C 30.}/OX JGQV 30J) N5 437 J37n8 4u0j 40130 Ns-(979 NS-0787 NS-08/4 NS-Q818 307008 !7/08 70Q0 Lz00 24000 i0 1437/08 5/7j08 11 6000 16D0g N5;0797 3/7/08 12 170Q0 170Q0 13 N5y0893 17/7/08 NS{0810 I-4/7j08 NSOBTi 4/7j08 3000 F1s 13000 21/7/08 tQQOQ) 6 NS/091z 28/7/08 17 N5/0965 4,2/08 100Q 18 NS/08Qg NS/08Tz 4/7/08 Shri Agrasen Enterorises Plast Stift- X Shri Agrasen Enlerprises Plast Fill-X 3000 19 4/7/08 1QQ Z0 NS/08l] N5/0821 6/7/08 Shri Agrasen Enterprises Nor-prine Grade 90Q0 21 2197/08 Shri Agiasell Cnterprises Ncn pfine Grade 6QQQ 22 NS,og13 24/7/08 Shri Agraseri Enterprises Plast Stiff' 40DQ 23 N5/0935 Ns/0935 2477/08 Shri Agrascn Erterm priscs Piast Fili-X Sooo 34 Shri Agrasen Enterprises Non-Prime Grade 16000 95Q0d 25 NS/O958 27/7/08 27/7/08 Superpack Bangalare( Eright Packaging) Past Stiff-X 8850 26 N5/0955 Past White Green * 27 NS{0956 27/7/08 Superpack- Bangalore{ Bright Packagmng} 98_ Plast Suprcme-X 28 N5/0957 2777,08 Siuperpack Bangalcre{Bright Paikzgig} Vted Chcmicals- Bangalare N5,0925 221,08 Plast while * 17000 29 1odoo 1OQoo" 1 Vcis.374,375&4S5/NAG/2014 GfNos ][,12 & 13/NAG/ZU14 A+SS tI }L'ay:2420}7-#8 Wv 2{C9 1 9s 302 N5/0895 17/7i8 Vnterl Chemcals- Bzrgalo e Uialted Ch: iIKals Banqaiorc Piast Stiff- JOQ0 3 NS;( 9C '2{J;06 Plast vhite-X LCOOO 34000 282850 282850 Rs: 62000 16500 9qoQ 76500 56500 1q00Q 230500 SRNO_ PARIY 4 International Packagirig -Silvasa 124-5002 2 [netech Polyfabrik-Pyng_(33*500) Ashok Polymers Sholapur _ {i8* 5a0} Tulisyan_Ner:Bangalore (153 500) $ Jakhotiz_Plastics-Hxderabad+Goa Sedar (113.500) 6 Geeta Packaging &_Surbt-Nagpur _(20_SOG) Total 4,[ Subsequent to the search, statement of Shri $ K. Sharma, Manager (Sales) of Super Pack Division of the assessee and that of Shri Ashish Bajaj Shri S.K Sharma stated that in the chart at page no_ 124 was recorded: details of sales of X' category master batches are noted: In the chart at page no_ 120 cash receipt out of sale of X' category master batches to 6 parties @Rs.5/- per kg; or Rs.5O0/- per mt: ton are noted Pages 125 and 126 are summary Qf charts at page numbers 127 to 129. In the chart at page mo. 126, total amount to be received in the month of June; 2008 is mentioned, Similarly, in the chart at page no, 125, total amount ta be received in the month of July, 2008 is mentioned. At page numbers 125 & 126 in column no. 1 serial number and in column no. 2, name of the parties to whom X' category material has been sold is noted: In column no.3, quantity of X' category sale is noted _ In column NO. 4, payment to be received for the month is calculated @Rs.5}- per kg. In column no.5, amount of payment received is noted. In column no_ 6 date of receipt is noted, In column no, 7 credit balance is noted_ In column no. 8, balance of previous month Is noted. Column number 9 is blank: In the last column; credit balance at the end of the current month is noted. When questioned;_ Shri Ashish Bajaj and Shri S.K_Sharma denied receiving any amount out of 'X category sales in cash but the Assessing Officer was of the view that from these noting it is clear that M/s Superpack Is receiving amount in cash @Rs.5f- per kg. and in some cases @Rs.8/- per kg. Apparently certain PEL ;J {71 173& 13S/NAG/2014 {()Nox {}.2* I/NAC/ZO14 10 +1h'!L } 4;3 209017-4183 to 2Ofh-1() 7 amount is being shown in the invoices as discount but in fact the amount does not represent the discount but has been collected by the assessee in cash not recorded in the books Qf accounts The Assessing Officer therefore; computed the total sales of X' category master batches for the assessment year 2009-10 at 23,12,950 Kg: and applied thereto a rate Qf Rs.5/- per kg: which claimed by the assessee to be the discount as being received by the assessee in cash and estimated the cash sales at Rs.1,15,64,750/- for the assessment year 200g-10. Similarly, the addition has been made in each of the assessment vears, 5. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) and before the CIT(A) the assessee contended that the seized documents relate only to the period fram June 2008 to July 2008. The addition is based on presumption without any evidence and contrary to the facts available on record, AII the sales were duly recorded in the books of account; The assessee company is having two divisions. The steel division manufactures D.R. Ginning Machine Bailing Press and allied products. The Super Pack Division manufactures master batches which is raw material for plastic industry. The master batches manufactures by the company many times results into low quality products. Such low quallty products are categorized as X' category master batches. The company has allowed discounts in the nature of quantity discount; cash discount; quality discount etc; on such X' category goods. The seized documents contain the details of the transaction of X' category master batches: The investigation wing made hectic enquiries about the contents of the impugned documents . Shri 5. K. Sharma, Marketing Manager from whose possession page Nos. 127 to 129 were found, was examined and his statements was recorded during search: Shri Sharma explained in statement that the impugned documents are the records of discount assured by him at the time of booking of sales and while touring for obtaining booking of goods, he used to promise the discounts at varying rates from Rs.5/- to Rs,8/- decided according to the quantity, quantity and I.l.1 Nus_374,375 &45NM/2U [ | (. U}.nst.[1.12 & 13/1466/20[4 0USSMc[t yClry2007 (X Fc) ZOs}- 1C} 92 the payment terms: This is also duly recorded in the Soft copy in laptop Once he agreed with the customer, was passed on this information to the Director Shri Ashish Bajaj (or his sanction and thereafter, the goods were supplled and discount was allowed in the bill: Similar enquiries were made from Shri Ashish Bajaj, Director of the company in respect of the impugned He also confirmed having allowed discount on "X category documents. material o the basis of proposal given by the Marketing Manager Shri S. K the coutse of assessment proceedings the seized Sharma. During was explained with reference to the books of accounts The documents Assessing Officer misinterpreted & misconstrued the impugned documents and heid that it is a record of cash receivable/received from the customer, It was further submitted that this fact is also established as the production and sales i5 accepted by the Excise Department: The presumption by the Assessing Officer that the discount offered in the goods has been received back by the assessee in cash does not have any basis; The assessee of the impugned documents before the CIT(A) and Jmn submitted copy that the impugned documents contain the details like invoice contended material spld, quantity supplied, name of the party and the number , discount allowed per ton is mentioned therein; AIl these details were cross verified by the Assessing Officer ad no variation was found in any of the details including the discount mentioned therein: The CIT(A); after hearing the submissions f the assessee, deleted the said addition by observing as under: I have considered the aforesaid submissions Of the appellant; the a5sessment order, evidences available on record and the facts 0f the case The impugned documents numbering 120, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 and 129 of item No 13 are part of Ipose paper bundle of Annexure 'B:; There i5 no dispute about the fact that the transactions recorded in the impugned documents are relating to the sales of 'X' category material to various Customers for the months of June, 2008 and July, 2008, These documents are reproduced in the assessment order at Pages 2 to 5 and Pages 6 to 9 On 3 careful examination I find that the details Iike invoice no , date quantity, description of i.33 As.{74,33754455/NA6/20[4 Gw [1.12213/NAGZXJ: X"5slHI Yl_ry 2007-{'83tc Zuoy-] l) 7$ Of the party , discount amount etc: are material; name mentioned There is no dispute elther about making the entry Of these invoices (mentioned in the impugned documents) a5 the Same are found recorded in thebvbooks %f accounts It is mentioned in the assessment arder para '5.1' & '5.2' 0n1} page 6) that statements u/s 131 were recorded of Mr Ashish Bajaj Director and Mr, 5. K Sharma, Sales Manager of the company have stated in their statements that the discount ad they allowed to the customers 0n '' category Sales have been noted The assessee wa5 asked to in the impugned seized documents. the impugned amounts mentioned in the explain why docunients be not treated 35 unrecorded sales; The explanatior i5 mentioned in para 7 and the AR Of the of the assessee appellant produced before me; the COpY Of the letter addressed AO. The assessee categorically denied receiving any to the amount out of "X" category 5ales in cash and stated that it Is the discount allowed to the customers and also record Of the The AQ explained the purpose Of maintaining such cocuments rejected the explanation offered bv the appellant and held that are the record of the cash impugned documents from the customers. Thus, the case of the ACesyenatecrevabesfrg hate indsigedernto Under-irvoicing O x category material &d treated the same a5 suppressed sales and made addition as undisclosed income On the other hand, has denied of any under invoicing or receipt of the appellant cash money from the customers: The counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there is no evidence with the AO ta estabiish that the assessee received cash from the customers inspite of the search action conducted at the premises %f the appellant Kere it is worth noting that enquiries had been carried out by conducting surveys and otherwise on the various customers mentioned in the seized documents The Issue was by the investigation wing to the Excise also passed On which also made separate enquiries from the Department and no adverse evidence has been customers and assessee brought on record_in these enquiries and even by the Excise Department also. The A.R: Of the appellant has contended that of discount for sale of such goods {5 J natural the event the AO should have accepted. It was also corollary which claimed that no evidence was found with respect to receipt of cash in the Year under consideration ad the addition i5 aadezm the basis of conjectures &nd purely on surmises by the AO 1/..Nms. 74, 7:&455/NA6/20MA (.018us.]3, .2 &13/NA/Z014 Asscssnn"tf ye;rs:ZUI7-Ue} to 2(H)y- LC) 99 After thorough examination Of the facts available On record; [ find considerable force in the contention Of the appellant: The assessee has discharged the initial burden by pffering an explanation in the statement recorded on oath at the time of search a5 well as explanation furnished during assessment proceedings I find that the appellant company is manufacturing master batches Which are used as raw material for plastic industry. The explanation of the assessee that the production of finished goods at times results into low quality material ad its categorisation 35 'X' category material while selling the goods i5 not denied by AO ad iS also accepted by the Excise Authorities: These discount entries are found duly recorded in the Sale Invoices a5 well 35 in the regular books of accounts Of the assessee; On examination of the sale bills, find that the discount is separately allowed in the bill by deduction from the sale amount ad thereafter Excise duty is charged. The assessee was called upon In the post search proceedings to provide the details of all the customers to whom 'X"' category material was sold and the assessee furnished the copy af accounts of all such persons to the investigation wing: It i5 brought on record by the appellant that enquiries were made from the customers by conducting survey ad otherwise and this fact is undisputed The AO has failed to bring On record any material collected from such parties of having paid back cash in liev Of the discounts availed by such any customers: In my opinion; the burden of proving that the assessee had received cash back; lied upon the A.0. and he has clearly failed to discharge the same. The Search was conducted 136 August; 2008 and thereafter the assessee has alsp On received summons dated 2-12-2008 from the Excise Authority, copy of which I5 placed on record. It I5 claimed by the appellant that the enquiry of the Excise Department was in consequence to the Search action ad at the behest of the investigation wing; Inspite of all consequential enquiries, the AO has failed to bring on recard or ay evidence to establish that the appellant has received cash back from the customers in the garb of discount allowed: Survey and search are an extra-ordinary action under the Income Tax Act and if in such an extra- ordinary actions, no material is found at the time Of search or in consequential surveys, I am of the considered view that In such circumstances it cannot be 5aid that there was any undisclosed The addition i5 purely the result of surmises &d income: presumption and based upon whims ad fancies of the A.0 It Is absolutely devoid of any merits. have also carefully perused details of sales ad discounts in the Annexure to the the ReLlan @ 1/ 4 Y/s {7.375 4S5/NAC/2014 ( (.N;y ! [./3 [3NG2O AsHolemi }eils:2iJ)7-(98 Lu) 2iHO-[(J Assessment Order, which have been considered for the purpose of making addition. It is peculiar tO note that the search action was conducted on 13-8-2008 and for the purpose of making addition; the AQ considered the discount allowed even In the period after Search Ke. 13-8-2008 to 31-3-2009, thereby stretching his presumption that the discounts for such later period (post-search) were also received back by the appellant The presumption made by the AQ On the basis of impugned document is clearly not supported by any corroborative evidence and therefore the addition made by the AO deserves to be deleted: In view of the above; hold that the action of the AO is arbitrary a notional ad the addition On merely assumptions cannot be sustained Thus it is reasonable ta conclude that there is no Suppression f sales Or under - invoicing in the year under consideration and therefore; the addition of Rs.1,15,64,750/- made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant: 5.1 Similar addition has been deleted in the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09, 6 Learned D. R. vehemently relied on the order of the Assessing Officer but could not draw out attention or adduce before Us any cogent material or evidence which may compel uS to reverse the finding of the CIT(A) which are based on the basis of the facts and evidence duly appreciated by the CIT(A) ad the Department: It is not denied that the impugned seized documents contain the complete details including date; invoice number, name of party, rate and bili amount etc; 7_ Learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) and has also drawn our attention to the seized docurents as well as pages 8 & 9 of the assessment order and brought to Qur knowledge that in respect of each item mentioned therein, the invoice number, invoice date as well as the quantity is duly mentioned. It is a case of giving the discount to the party depending on the quantity, quality and terms of payment; It is not 2 case where the sales are not found to be Icc 1"1 :s {711,375&455/N46/2014 L.()Nus.1, [2 & 13/NAGf2O14 {>36*88[912'1l Yulrs 2UCF7-{}F Lw ZO{HY 1V Ic;f recorded in the regular books of account; For the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09, it was submitted that no material relating to these sales were found, 8 We have heard the rival submissions, carefully considered the same along with the orders of the tax authorities below: We noted that this is a where the Assessing Officer made the addition in every assessment case year 0 the basis of the documents found and seized during the course of search relating to the sales of the 'X' category material to various customers for the month of June and July, 2008. These documents are reproduced in the assessment order at pages 2 to 5 and 6 to 9 The Assessing Officer 0n the basis of these documents presumed as if the assessee has recelved the for the amount which has been shown by the assessee to be the cash to each of the party mentioned therein; The Assessing discount given QelLatg noted, recorded the statement of Shri S.K,Sharma as well Officer , we as Shri Ashish Bajaj and both of them stated that the amount of discount allowed to the customer @Rs.5/- per kg Qr Rs.8/ - per kg: represent the The CIT(A); #e noted, has given a finding of fact after discount; appreciating the statement of Shri S.K Sharma and Shri Ashish Bajaj as well a5 these documents: In absence of any cogent material or evidence being brought to our knowledge, we are of the view that it is not a fit case which warrants our interference: We accordingly confirm the order of CIT(A) in of the assessment year. This disposes of ground Nos. 1 to 5 each in assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 and ground Nos. 1 and 2 for the assessment year 2009-10. 9 Now there remain grounds 3 & 4 for the assessment year 2009-10 for our adjudication: Ground No, 3 relates to the deletion Of addition of Rs.29,96,942}- 9,1 added by the Assessing Officer as undisclosed sales of the waste; The facts Nn.87];7JAS5/NAC;/ZUM 1..()Nus ][, 12 & 13/NAC/2Q14 ;lssuvient yCars:242407-U8 tn ZuOq-] Jz relating to this ground are that during the course of search at the residential premises of Shri Vinod Kumar Bajaj; documents at Annexure B-11, pages 29,30,74 ad 75 were found which represent the record of sales of scrap by the Super Pack Division of the assessee company to M/s Jejani Waste Paper Industries: The documents are in relation to the transaction in the month of May and July, 2008. The assessee during the course of search as well as during the course of assessment proceedings denied the impugned document belonging to the assessee, Rather it was submitted that the documents seized are in the handwriting of Shri Chandraprakash Jejani proprietor of MJs. Jejani Waste Paper Supplier and belong to the said party. The Assessing Officer reproduced the contents of documents at Page No 11 to 14 of the Assessment order ad noted that the details of sales with date, bill No. name, quality of the product; weight; bill amount; total rate, total amount and TCS are mentioned in the impugned document: The transactions have been accepted by Shri Chandraprakash Jejani in the statement recorded: The Assessing Officer took the view that the assessee has suppressed the sale of scrap by undervaluing the sale price ad accordingly, the ratio of sale to bill amount was determined and applied to the sales from 1/4/2008 to 31/8/2008 on sale of scrap to Jejani Waste paper Supplier ad accordingly estimated the unrecorded sales whlch was added in the income of the assessee The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who deleted the said adaition: 10 We have heard the rival submissions; carefully considered the same along with the orders of the tax authorities below , We noted that the CIT(A) deleted the said addition by observing as under: 'I have considered the aforesaid submissions Of the appellant; the assessment order, eviderces available On record and the facts af the case; The impugned documents numbering 29, 30, 74 and 75 of item No. 1l are part of loose paper bundle of Annexure B. There Is no dispute about the Fact that the transactions recarded in the impugned documents are relating