DCIT, New Delhi V. Mr. Rajneesh Chopra, New Delhi

ITA 1001/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1684 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 28-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR KETIA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained expenditure; Loose papers
• Section: 69C; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M ITA NOS.1001 TO 1004/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 TO 2009-10 DCIT, CIRCLE 37(1), NEW DELHI. VS. MR. RAJNEESH CHOPRA, 101, NILGIRI APARTMENTS, 9, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 001. PAN: AAPPC2128J ITA NOS.1233 TO 1235/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 TO 2008-09 MR. RAJNEESH CHOPRA, 101, NILGIRI APARTMENTS, 9, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 001. PAN: AAPPC2128J VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 37(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SALIL AGGARWAL, ADVOCATE & SHRI SHAILESH GUPTA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAJESH KUMAR KETIA, SR. DR ITA NO.1001 TO 1004/DEL/2013 ITA NOS.1233 TO 1235/DEL/2013 2 DATE OF HEARING : 01.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.10.2015 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS BATCH OF SEVEN APPEALS COMPRISES OF FOUR APPE ALS BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-10 AND THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2008-09. AS SOME OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON, E RGO WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE THEM OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE RECALL ED MATTERS INASMUCH AS THE EARLIER EX PARTE COMMON ORDER WAS RECALLED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS LATER ORDER. 2. BEFORE TAKING UP THE INSTANT APPEALS, WE CONS IDER IT EXPEDIENT TO MENTION THAT THE CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005-06 WERE EXTENSIVELY ARGUED BY BOTH THE SIDES AS A LEAD MATT ER. WE HAVE PASSED A SEPARATE ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06. IN FACT, NO S EPARATE ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES IN THE PRESE NT APPEALS WHICH ARE COMMON TO THE A.Y. 2005-06 AND THE ARGUMENTS FOR SU CH EARLIER YEAR ITA NO.1001 TO 1004/DEL/2013 ITA NOS.1233 TO 1235/DEL/2013 3 WERE ADOPTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE VIEW TAKEN IN SUCH E ARLIER YEAR WILL BE FOLLOWED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ON SIMILAR GROUNDS. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 3. FIRST TWO GROUNDS OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE AG AINST SUBSTITUTING INCOME FROM PROFESSION TO RS.94,29,953/- (WRONGLY M ENTIONED AS RS.1,31,89,943/-) AS AGAINST RS.1,50,39,861/- ASS ESSED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES IN THE IMPOUNDED REGISTER. TH E ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE SUSTENANCE OF THE BALANCE ADDITION. SIMILAR GROUNDS WERE THERE IN THE APPEALS FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06. IN SUCH YEAR, THE INCOME OF RS.54 LAC DETERMINED BY THE AO WAS REDUCED BY THE L D. CIT(A) TO RS.40.17 LAC. WE HAVE UPHELD THE VIEW OF THE LD. C IT(A) FOR SUCH EARLIER YEAR. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE FOR THE A.Y. 2005- 06, FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN FOR SUCH EARLIER YEAR, WE APPROVE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. BOTH THE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 4. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST RESTRICTING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM U NDISCLOSED ITA NO.1001 TO 1004/DEL/2013 ITA NOS.1233 TO 1235/DEL/2013 4 SOURCES ON THE BASIS OF UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT FR OM RS.5,73,248/- TO RS.2,02,765/-. THE FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE SIMILAR TO GROUND NO. 3 FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE SUSTENAN CE OF THE REMAINING ADDITION. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN SUCH EARLIER YEAR, WE APPROVE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THE GROUND S RAISED BY BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. 5. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS AGAI NST THE DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE AMOU NTING TO RS.36,67,400/-. THE FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE THAT CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS WERE IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND WERE MARKED AS ANNEXURE A-18. CERTAIN DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRE D FROM 9.4.2005 TO 17.5.2005 AMOUNTING TO RS.36,67,400/- WERE WRITTEN ON PAGE NO. 32 OF THIS ANNEXURE. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM. NOT CONVINCED, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.36, 67,400/- U/S 69C OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) ORDERED FOR THE DELETIO N OF THIS ADDITION. ITA NO.1001 TO 1004/DEL/2013 ITA NOS.1233 TO 1235/DEL/2013 5 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT EXPENSES OF RS.36.67 LAC WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE DOCUMENTS IMPOUN DED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN PRESUMING THAT THESE DOCUMENTS BELONGED TO THE ASSE SSEE ONLY. HAVING HELD SO, THE NEXT QUESTION WHICH ARISES IS WHETHER THE ADDITION FOR RS.36.67 LAC ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN UNEXPLAINED EXPE NSES CAN BE MADE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SURRENDERED UNEXPLAIN ED INCOME FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ORIGINAL RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.18.35 LAC AND THE ASSESSEE H AS CONCEDED TOTAL INCOME FROM PROFESSION AT RS.94.29 LAC, WHICH HAS B EEN APPROVED BY US IN AN EARLIER PARA. THIS MANIFESTS THAT AN ADDITIO NAL UNDISCLOSED PROFESSIONAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESS ED TO THE TUNE OF RS.75.95 LAC. WHEN THERE IS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHI CH HAS BEEN SEPARATELY CHARGED TO TAX AND THERE ARE CERTAIN UN- RECORDED EXPENSES WHICH ARE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOM E, THERE CANNOT BE ITA NO.1001 TO 1004/DEL/2013 ITA NOS.1233 TO 1235/DEL/2013 6 ANY SEPARATE ADDITION FOR UNRECORDED EXPENSES ALSO BECAUSE SUCH UNRECORDED EXPENSES ARE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME, UNLESS THE AO PROVES THAT THE U NDISCLOSED INCOME WAS UTILIZED ELSEWHERE. HERE IS A CASE IN WHICH UN DISCLOSED PROFESSIONAL INCOME HAS BEEN TAXED AT RS.75.95 LAC. AGAINST THI S, THERE IS AN UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE TO THE TUNE OF RS.36.67 LAC . ONCE ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL INCOME HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY RATIONALE FOR INCLUDI NG UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES ALSO IN THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME. SUCH UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES HAVE TO BE TREATED AS FINANCED OUT OF THE UNDISCLOS ED INCOME. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS SPE NT ELSEWHERE. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING REASONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.36,67,400/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED EXPENSES FOUND RECORDED IN THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS. THIS GROUND IS NOT ALLOWED. 7. GROUND NO. 5 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.19,40,000/-. THE FACTS APROPOS THIS GROUND ARE THAT PAGE NO. 4 O F ANNEXURE-A-15 ITA NO.1001 TO 1004/DEL/2013 ITA NOS.1233 TO 1235/DEL/2013 7 DIVULGED THE RECORDING OF A TRANSACTION OF SALE OF SHOP NO.79, LGF, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, WHICH WAS SOLD FOR RS.26,10,000 /- ON 27.01.2007. THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A S UM OF RS.23,40,000/- THE ASSESSEES BANK STATEMENT REVEALED THAT A SUM O F RS.4 LAC WAS PAID ON 22.10.2005 AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. TH E AO MADE ADDITION FOR THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.19,40,000/-. THE LD . CIT(A) DELETED THIS ADDITION. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, HERE AGAIN WE FIND THAT THE SUB JECT MATTER OF THIS GROUND IS INCURRING OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. AS AGAINST ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL INCOME OF RS.75. 95 LAC WHICH HAS BEEN TAXED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THIS S UM OF RS.19.40 LAC HAS TO BE PRESUMED AS EMANATING FROM SUCH UNDISCLOSED P ROFESSIONAL INCOME, BECAUSE SUCH AMOUNT ALONG WITH A SUM OF RS. 36.67 LAC, BEING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING GROUND, IS LESS THAN THE UNDISCLOSED PROFESSIONAL INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE RE ASONS GIVEN IN EARLIER ITA NO.1001 TO 1004/DEL/2013 ITA NOS.1233 TO 1235/DEL/2013 8 PARA, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER DELETING THIS AD DITION. THIS GROUND FAILS. 9. THE LAST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPE AL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. PAGE NO. 4 OF A-18 IMPOUNDED DURING T HE COURSE OF SURVEY REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED CERTAIN EXP ENSES TOWARDS FOREIGN TRAVEL TO BANGKOK. THE AO ESTIMATED EXPENSES ON FO REIGN TRAVEL AT RS.1,50,000/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THIS ADDITION. 10. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS MADE AD DITION U/S 69C BY ESTIMATING EXPENSE OF RS.1,50,000/- INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON FOREIGN VISIT. WE FIND FROM THE ASSESSEES INCOME AND EXPE NDITURE ACCOUNT THAT THERE IS A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF TRAVELLING EXPENS ES AMOUNTING TO RS.4,85,430/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE OUT A CASE TH AT TRAVELLING EXPENSES INCURRED ON BANGKOK VISIT STAND INCLUDED IN THIS SU M OF RS.4.85 LAC AND, AS SUCH, THERE CANNOT BE ANY SEPARATE ADDITION. WH EN THE TRAVELLING ITA NO.1001 TO 1004/DEL/2013 ITA NOS.1233 TO 1235/DEL/2013 9 EXPENSES HAVE BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS I NCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, THERE CANNOT BE ANY CASE FOR T REATING THE EXPENSES ON BANGKOK VISIT U/S 69C WITHOUT CONTROVERTING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT EXPENSES ON BANGKOK VISIT STAND INC LUDED IN SUCH TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS.4.85 LAC. THAT APART, WE FIND THAT ADDITION U/S 69C CANNOT BE MADE ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS. FOR MAKING SU CH AN ADDITION, IT IS OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE AO TO BRING ON RECORD CERTAIN DIRECT MATERIAL INDICATING THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITU RE INCURRED, BUT, NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WE ARE DEALING W ITH A CASE IN WHICH THE AO HAS MADE AN ESTIMATE OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON SUCH BANGKOK VISIT. BE THAT AS IT MAY, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOL D THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOR THE REASON THAT EVEN IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID UNDERTAKE TRAVEL TO BANGKOK AND FURTHER DID NOT RECORD THE EX PENDITURE AS ESTIMATED BY THE AO IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THEN ALSO THIS AMOUNT OF PRESUMED EXPENDITURE OF RS.1.50 LAC IS TO BE CONSID ERED AS MET OUT OF THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED PROFESSIONAL INCOME OF RS.75. 95 LAC. IN VIEW OF THE ITA NO.1001 TO 1004/DEL/2013 ITA NOS.1233 TO 1235/DEL/2013 10 FOREGOING REASONS, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN DELETING THIS ADDITION. 11. THE ONLY OTHER GROUND SURVIVING IN THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL AGAINST THE INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. AR. THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED AS NOT PRESS ED. 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 13. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.10.20 07 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,98,880/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALLY COMPLETED PURSUANT TO NOTICE U/S 148, AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1.35 CRO RE INCLUDING INCOME FORM PROFESSION AT RS.1,08,79,338. 14. FIRST TWO GROUNDS OF THE REVENUES APPEAL A RE AGAINST SUBSTITUTING INCOME FROM PROFESSION TO RS.76,74,944 AS AGAINST RS.1,08,79,338 ASSESSED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES IN THE I MPOUNDED REGISTER. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE SUSTENANCE OF THE B ALANCE ADDITION. SIMILAR GROUNDS WERE THERE IN THE APPEALS FOR THE A .Y. 2005-06. IN SUCH ITA NO.1001 TO 1004/DEL/2013 ITA NOS.1233 TO 1235/DEL/2013 11 YEAR, THE INCOME OF RS.54 LAC DETERMINED BY THE AO WAS REDUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO RS.40.17 LAC. WE HAVE UPHELD THE VIE W OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR SUCH EARLIER YEAR. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE FOR THE A.Y. 2005- 06, FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN SUCH EARLIER YEAR, WE APPROVE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. BOTH THE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 15. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST RESTRICTING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM U NDISCLOSED SOURCES ON THE BASIS OF UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT FR OM RS.5,66,799/- TO RS.3,13,993/-. THE FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE SIMILAR TO GROUND NO. 3 FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE SUSTENAN CE OF THE REMAINING ADDITION. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN SUCH EARLIER YEAR, WE APPROVE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THE GROUND S RAISED BY BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. 16. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.7,20,000/- MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS UN EXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON FOREIGN TRAVELLING. ITA NO.1001 TO 1004/DEL/2013 ITA NOS.1233 TO 1235/DEL/2013 12 17. WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN OUR ORDER FOR T HE A.Y. 2006-07 WHILE DEALING WITH GROUND NO. 6 OF THE REVENUES AP PEAL AND HAVE HELD THAT NO SEPARATE ADDITION CAN BE SUSTAINED FOR UNEX PLAINED EXPENSES IF UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS MORE THAN THAT. FOR THIS YEA R ALSO, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE ON FOREIGN TRAVEL AT RS.7,20,000. UNDISCLOSED PROFESSIONAL INCOME FOR THIS YEAR HAS B EEN SUSTAINED TO THE TUNE OF RS.73.76 LAC (RS.76.74 LAC RS.2.98 LAC). FOLLOWING THE REASONS GIVEN IN OUR ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07, WE ORDER F OR THE DELETION OF THIS ADDITION. 18. THE LAST EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THE REVENUES APPE AL FOR THIS YEAR IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDI SCLOSED INVESTMENT OF RS.10,96,200/-. THE FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE THAT PAGE NO. 3 OF ANNEXURE A-15 DIVULGED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED SHOP NO.5 5, LGF, WORLD TRADE CENTRE ON 23.1.2007 FOR A SUM OF RS.37,06,200 /-. THE SOURCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS GIVEN AS SALE OF ANOTHER PROPE RTY, NAMELY, SHOP NO.79, LGF, WTC, FOR A SUM OF RS.26,10,000/-. THE AO ADDED THE ITA NO.1001 TO 1004/DEL/2013 ITA NOS.1233 TO 1235/DEL/2013 13 DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.10,96,200/-. THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THIS ADDITION. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THIS DE LETION. 19. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE REL EVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE S IMILAR TO GROUND NO. 5 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. FOLLOWI NG THE REASONS GIVEN FOR DELETION OF SUCH ADDITION, WE COUNTENANCE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION FOR THE CUR RENT YEAR AS WELL BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF THIS INVESTMENT ALONG WITH TH E OTHER UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IS MORE THAN THE UNDISCLOSED PROFESSION AL INCOME SUSTAINED BY US. 20. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL AGAINST SUSTENANCE OF REMAINING ADDITION ARE DISMISSED FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE EARLIER YEARS ORDERS. AS REGARDS THE GROUND CHALLENGING I NITIATION OF RE- ASSESSMENT, THE LD. AR WAS FAIR ENOUGH NOT TO PRESS THE SAME, WHICH IS HEREBY DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 21. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.1001 TO 1004/DEL/2013 ITA NOS.1233 TO 1235/DEL/2013 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 22. FIRST TWO GROUNDS OF THE REVENUES APPEAL A RE AGAINST SUBSTITUTING INCOME FROM PROFESSION TO RS.61,52,361 AS AGAINST RS.78,69,735 ASSESSED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES IN THE I MPOUNDED REGISTER. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE SUSTENANCE OF THE B ALANCE ADDITION. SIMILAR GROUNDS WERE THERE IN THE APPEALS FOR THE A .Y. 2005-06. IN SUCH EARLIER YEAR, THE INCOME OF RS.54 LAC DETERMINED BY THE AO WAS REDUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO RS.40.17 LAC. WE HAVE UPHELD THE VIEW OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR SUCH EARLIER YEAR. SINCE THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06, FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN SUCH EARL IER YEAR, WE APPROVE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. BOTH THE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 23. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST RESTRICTING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM U NDISCLOSED SOURCES ON THE BASIS OF UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT FR OM RS.21,77,352/- TO RS.6,20,251/-. THE FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE SIMILAR TO GROUND NO. 3 FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE SUSTENAN CE OF THE REMAINING ITA NO.1001 TO 1004/DEL/2013 ITA NOS.1233 TO 1235/DEL/2013 15 ADDITION. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN SUCH EARLIER YEAR, WE APPROVE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THE GROUND S RAISED BY BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. 24. THE ASSESSEES CHALLENGE TO THE ADDITIONS SUSTA INED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DISMISSED BECAUSE OF THE REASONS GIVEN IN EARLIER YEARS. THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT DOES NOT ARISE OUT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER BECAUSE THE ASS ESSMENT IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147. 25. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 26. FIRST TWO GROUNDS OF THE REVENUES APPEAL A RE AGAINST SUBSTITUTING INCOME FROM PROFESSION TO RS.34,16,080 AS AGAINST RS.60,53,959 ASSESSED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES IN THE I MPOUNDED REGISTER. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE SUSTENANCE OF THE B ALANCE ADDITION. SIMILAR GROUNDS WERE THERE IN THE APPEALS FOR THE A .Y. 2005-06. IN SUCH ITA NO.1001 TO 1004/DEL/2013 ITA NOS.1233 TO 1235/DEL/2013 16 EARLIER YEAR, THE INCOME OF RS.54 LAC DETERMINED BY THE AO WAS REDUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO RS.40.17 LAC. WE HAVE UPHELD THE VIEW OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR SUCH EARLIER YEAR. SINCE THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06, FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN SUCH EARL IER YEAR, WE APPROVE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. BOTH THE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 27. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST RESTRICTING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM U NDISCLOSED SOURCES ON THE BASIS OF UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT FR OM RS.2,78,172/- TO RS.63,000/-. THE FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE SIMILAR T O GROUND NO. 3 FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE SUSTENAN CE OF THE REMAINING ADDITION. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN SUCH EARLIER YEAR, WE APPROVE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THE GROUND S RAISED BY BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. ITA NO.1001 TO 1004/DEL/2013 ITA NOS.1233 TO 1235/DEL/2013 17 28. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.10.201 5. SD/- SD/- [SUCHITRA KAMBLE] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 06 TH OCTOBER, 2015. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.