Sh. Jasbir Singh Prop., Jalandhar V. The DCIT, Jalandhar

CO 20/ASR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6711 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Opportunity of being heard; Retraction
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.L. KARWA, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. D.K. SRIVASTAVA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 302(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 D.C.I.T. VS. SH. JASBIR SINGH CIR.II, JALANDHAR. PROP. CHAWLA FASHION, JALANDHAR. PAN:APNPS9536F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O.NO.20(ASR)/2000 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.302(ASR)/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 SH. JASBIR SINGH, VS. D.C.I.T. PROP. CHAWLA FSHION, CIR.II, JALANDHAR. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR RESPONDENT BY:SH. ANIL MIGLANI, ADV DATE OF HEARING :14.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:14.12.2011 ORDER PER H.L. KARWA, VP 2 THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND C.O. BY THE ASSESSE E ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 19.03 .2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,50,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT IN PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCTION OF SHOP. 1.1. WHILE DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE HAD VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.9,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT O F UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCTION OF SHOP AT NAWANSHAHAR AND COULD NOT JUSTIFY THE SOURCE OF THE SE INVESTMENT DESPITE BEING GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY TO DO SO. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT S URVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT), WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 13 TH MARCH, 2006 AND THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED AS: ON ACCOUNT OF CASH RS.4,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCTION OF SHOP AT KOTHI ROAD, NAWANSHAHAR. RS.9.50,000/- TOTAL: RS.14,00,000/- 3.1. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 15.03.2 007 AT RS.5,05,000/- BY DECLARING THE FOLLOWING: 3 NET PROFIT U/S 44AF @ 5% OF RETAIL SALE OF RS.18,00 ,000/- : RS. 90,000/- OTHER INCOME : RS.4,15,000/- 3.2 THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.9,50,000/- BEI NG THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY U NDER SECTION 133 AT HIS BUSINESS PREMISES ON 13 TH MARCH, 2006 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCTION OF SHOP AT KOTHI ROAD, NAWANSHAHAR. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT INCLUDE SURRENDERED AMOUNT OF RS.9,50,000/-. THE AO OBSERVE D THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, SURVEY TEAM CAME ACROSS COPY OF A GREEMENT DATED 14.09.2004 BETWEEN SH. JASBIR SINGH THE ASSESSEE A ND ONE SH. KRISHAN FOR SALE OF SHOP AT KOTHI ROAD FOR A SUM OF RS.46,25 LA KHS AND COPY OF LETTER SHOWING PAYMENT OF RS. 16 LAKHS RECEIVED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SH. KRISHAN. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SHOP AT KOTHI ROAD, NAWANSHHAR WAS PURCHASED THROUG H A GIFT RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER SH. GURCHARAN SINGH IN CASH. HOWEVE R, AS PER THE AO NO DOCUMENTARY PROOF OF THE GIFT RECEIVED FROM FATHER WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ALSO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE DETAILS O F INVESTMENT MADE IN CONSTRUCTION OF SHOP AT KOTHI ROAD, NAWANSHAHAR. TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A LOAN OF RS.15 LACS WAS TAKEN FROM BANK FOR C ONSTRUCTION PURPOSE AND THE LOAN WAS ALSO USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE A O GOT THE VALUATION OF SHOP DONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THE 4 VALUATION OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRU CTION AT RS.7,77,000/-. ON BEING CONFRONTED WITH ITS REPORT THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT THE VALUATION OFFICER HAD IGNORED INVESTMENTS MADE ON DECORATIVE WORKS IN THE SHOP. AS PER THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAD NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE T O EXPLAIN THE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCTION DONE ON THE SHOP. HE N OTED THAT ON THE ONE HAND THE ASSESSEE HAD RETRACTED FROM THE SURRENDER MADE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ON THE GROUND THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS EXPLAINED BY THE BANK LOAN AND AT THE SAME TIME THE BANK LOAN WAS SAID TO HAVE USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES ALSO. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASS ESSEE WAS TRYING TO MISLEAD BY NOT PROVIDING THE EXACT AMOUNT OF INVES TMENT AND HIS SOURCES. HE, THEREFORE, ADDED THE SUM OF RS.9,50,000/- SURRE NDERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHOP TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE C ARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED TH E ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5.1. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LAND ON WHICH THE SHOP H AS BEEN CONSTRUCTED WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05. HENCE, I DO NOT THINK THERE IS ANY SC OPE FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF LAND FOR THE SHOP. AS REGARDS COST O F CONSTRUCTION THE VO HAS VALUED THE COST OF CONSTRUC TION AT RS.7.77 LACS ONLY. THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED A SUM F RS.15 LACS FROM THE BANK FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHOP. THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF ANY EXCESS STOCK OR EXCESS CASH FOUND DURING THE SURVEY WHICH WOULD INDICATE 5 THAT LOAN FROM THE BANK HAD BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE P URPOSE OF BUSINESS TO A LARGE EXTENT. THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN DECLARED AT ONLY RS.18 LACS AND WOULD NOT NORMALLY REQUIRE THE INVESTMENT OF RS.15 LACS LOAN TAKEN FRO M THE BANK IN FULL. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN OTHER LOANS FROM THE BANK FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, AS NOTED IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER ITSELF. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN MY OPINION, TH E LOAN OF RS.15 LACS FROM THE BANK FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINS THE INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHOP TO THE TUNE OF RS.7.77 LACS. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAD RETRACTED F ROM THE SURRENDER, IT WAS FOR THE DEPTT. TO HAVE PLACED SU FFICIENT MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE RETRACTION WAS NOT VALID AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHOP AT RS.9.50 LACS. NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON R ECORD. IN FACT, THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT HA S BEEN FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VO TO BE LOWER THAN THAT CONTEN DED BY THE APPELLANT. SINCE THE LOAN FROM BANK OF RS.15 LACS F OR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF SHOP IS NOT DISPUTED, A ND NO EVIDENCE OF ANY OTHER INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESS EE FROM BORROWED FUND HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.9.50 LACS MADE BY THE AO IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. GROUND NO.2 AND 2. 1 IS ALLOWED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALS O PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE VALUATION OFFICER ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.7.77 LACS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN FROM BAN K AMOUNTING TO RS.15 LACS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF SHOP. WE, THEREFORE, AGREE WITH THIS OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE LOAN OF RS. 15 LACS FROM THE BANK FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINS THE INV ESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHOP TO THE TUNE OF RS.7.77 LACS. FURTHERMORE, THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE LOAN FROM THE BANK HAD BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE 6 OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO AGREE WITH THI S OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS RETRACTED FROM TH E SURRENDER, IT WAS FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO HAVE PLACED SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON R ECORD TO SHOW THAT THE RETRACTION WAS NOT VALID AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHOP AT RS. 9.50 LACS. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE CATEGORICAL FINDING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A). CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. C IT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER AFTER APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS SETTLED LEGAL POSITION. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO N OT SEE ANY VALID GROUND IN INTERFERING WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ON TH IS ISSUE. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO.1 & 1.1. OF THE APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, READS AS UNDER: THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16 ,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED FROM SH. KRISHAN. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 30 TH JUNE, 2008 REGARDING STATUS OF SALE OF SHOP AT KOTHI ROAD, NAWANSHAHAR. AS PER STATEMENT GIVEN, THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF SHOP FOR RS.46.25 LACS BE TWEEN SH. KRISHAN AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MATERIALIZE AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 16 LACS RECEIVED AS 7 ADVANCE WAS RETURNED TO SH. KRISHAN. THE TRANSACTIO N WAS IN CASH ONLY. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE SH. KRISHAN AND TH E WITNESSES AS PER THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSEE SHOWED HIS INAB ILITY TO PRODUCE THEM AND INSTEAD PROVIDED THEIR ADDRESSES. THE AO ISSUED SUMMONS IN THE NAMES OF SH. KRISHAN AND THE WITNESSES ON 17.11.2008. HOW EVER, ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 21.11.2008 NONE OF THEM ATTENDED. SUMM ONS WERE AGAIN ISSUED ON 03.12.2008 IN THE NAME OF SH. KRISHAN AND THE WI TNESSES AND THE INSPECTOR SH. Y.P. BHAMBRI, WAS SPECIALLY SENT TO S ERVE THE SUMMONS. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE RELATIVE OF SH. KRISHAN AN D WITNESSES REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE SAME AND STATED THAT THEY WERE OUT OF ST ATION.THE INSPECTORS REPORT STATED THAT SH. KRISHAN WAS NOT A MAN OF MEA NS AND COULD NOT HAVE GIVEN SUCH A LARGE SUM TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO, THE REFORE, HELD THAT SOURCE OF RS. 16 LACS WAS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE AS SESSEES TOTAL INCOME. 8. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6.1. IN MY OPINION, THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR MAKING SUCH ADDITION IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE EVIDEN CE REGARDING PAYMENT OF RS. 16 LACS IN CASH BY SH. KRISHAN TO T HE ASSESSEE FOUND DURING THE SURVEY CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE PAYM ENT WAS MADE ON 15.9.2004 BY SH. KRISHAN TO THE ASSESSEE. S INCE THE DOCUMENT ON WHICH THE AO IS RELYING ITSELF STATES T HAT THE IMPUGNED PAYMENT WAS MADE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004- 05, THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION ON TH IS ACCOUNT IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.2. 2006-07. IF AT ALL ANY ADDITION IS TO BE MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT, THE SAME CAN BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. GROUND NOS. 2 & 2.3 ARE, T HEREFORE, ALLOWED. 8 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE EVIDENCE REGA RDING PAYMENT OF RS. 16 LACS IN CASH BY SH. KRISHAN TO THE ASSESSEE FOUND DURING SURVEY CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MAD ON 15 TH SEPT., 2004 BY SH. KRISHAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE IMPUGNED PAYMENT FALLS IN THE F INANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THUS, THER E WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 16 LACS IN THE ASSESSMENT YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE FULLY AGREE WITH THIS OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) THAT IF AT ALL ANY ADDITION IS TO BE MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT, THE SAME CAN BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND NOT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE GROUND RAISED BY THE RE VENUE, HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 10. NOW, WE DEAL WITH C.O. NO.20(ASR)/2010 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN THE C.O. READS AS UNDER: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,16,000 /- WHICH WAS AVAILABLE OUT OF THE CASH IN HAND AS SHOWN IN THE C ASH STATEMENT FURNISHED BEFORE AO WHICH IS NOT ADVERSELY COMMENTE D BY THE AO AND THIS FACT IS ALSO CORROBORATED BY THE LD. CI T(A). THE ADDITION UPHELD BY CIT(A) IS PRAYED TO BE DELETED. 11. WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT, THE AO MADE AN ADDITI ON OF RS.3,16,000/- BEING AMOUNT DEPOSITED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION BY THE ASSESSEE 9 IN BANK ACCOUNT NO.900 ON THE BASIS THAT NO CONCRE TE REPLY OR EXPLANATION WAS PUTFORTH. 12. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A), IN PARA 7.1. OF HIS ORDER NOTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE DEPOSITS OF RS.3,16, 600/- WERE OUT OF INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME, AS M ENTIONED IN CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) AC CEPTED THAT AO HAS NOT COMMENTED ON THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A), O BSERVED THAT SINCE IN THE CASH STATEMENT THE OPENING CASH IN HAND IS RS. 11,00,307/- AND NO EXPLANATION IS SUBMITTED, THE GROUND WAS REJECTED AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE, FILED THE PRESENT C.O. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. SH. ANIL M IGLANI, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED CASH FLOW STATEMENT AS WELL AS STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS FOR THE E ARLIER YEAR AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE A.O. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS, WHICH WERE AL SO FILED BEFORE THE AO. THE DETAILS OF THESE DOCUMENTS ARE AS UNDER: PAGE NO. CONTENTS & RELEVANCE FILED BEFORE 1. COPY OF LETTER DATED 26.12.2008 FILED BEFORE AO CONTAINING THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT SHOWING THE CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSE E. AO 10 2. STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2004 T O 31.03.2005 SHOWING THE CLOSING CASH IN HAND AT RS.11,00,307/- DUE TO WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK ACCOUNTS AO 3. STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2055 TO 31.03.2006 AO 4. COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER DT. 10.11.2008 IN RESPECT OF GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS FATHER SH. GURBACHAN SINGH ON 16.07.2004. AO 13.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, POINTED OUT THAT FROM THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT CLOSING CASH IN HA ND OF EARLIER YEAR WAS RS.11,00,307/-, WHICH WAS THE OPENING CASH IN HAND FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE CASH IN HAND W AS DUE TO WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT. SH. ANIL MIGLANI, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT NEITHER THE AO NOR THE CIT(A), EVER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN ABOUT TH E OPENING CASH IN HAND. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO DID NOT COMMENT ON THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, AS OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FIL E OF THE A.O.FOR VERIFICATION AND FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDE RING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES F THE CASE, WE THINK THAT THE ISSUE N EEDS TO BE VERIFIED AND DECIDED AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), ON THIS ISSUE AND REMAND THE SAME TO THE FI LE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE. 14. GROUND NO.2 RAISED IN THE C.O. READS AS UNDER: 11 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE OTHER ADDITIONS AFTE R PROPER APPRAISAL OF ENTIRE CASE AND THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.9,50,000/- WRONGLY MADE BY AO CONSID ERING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND ADDITION OF RS.16,00,00 0/- WITHOUT ESTABLISHING ANY SUCH INCOME. THE RULINGS QUOTED BY AO ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE.. 15. GROUND NO.2 OF THE C.O. MERELY SUPPORTS THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY EFFECTIVE RELIEF A ND WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE C.O. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED WHILE C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14TH D ECEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K.SRIVASTAVA) (H.L. KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 14TH DECEMBER, 2011 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. JASBIR SINGH PRO. M/S. CHAWLA FAHI ON CENTRE, JALANDHAR. 2. THE DCIT, RANGE-II, JALANDHAR. 3. THE CIT(A),JALANDHAR. 4. THE CIT,JALANDHAR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, ASR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER 12 (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH : AMRITSAR.