The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar. V. Sh. Subash Chand, Amritsar.

ITA 104/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8884 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SHARDA
• Assessee Lawyers: PADAM BAHL
• Keywords: Business income; Loose papers; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.104(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-IV, AMRITSAR. VS. SH. SUBASH CHAND, 115-B, GALI NO.4, DAYANAND NAGAR, LAWRENCE ROAD, AMRITSAR. PAN:AAIPC7381A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. R.K. SHARDA (DR.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. PADAM BAHL (CA.) DATE OF HEARING: 23.12. 2015 DATE OF PRONOU NCEMENT: 21.01.2016 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), DATED 18.12.2013 FOR ASST. YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY REVENUE ARE REPRO DUCED BELOW. (I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.30 L ACS MADE BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE T O FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND FAILURE TO ESTABLISH DIREC T TRAIL TO THE DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME MADE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. (II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE A.O EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS OWN ONUS T O PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT PART PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY SOLD AS PER THE ALLEGED AGREEMENT TO SELL AND THUS DELETING ITA NO.104 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 2 THE ADDITION OF RS.4,07,400/- MADE BY THE A.O BEING DIFFERENT IN THE SALE PRICE OF LAND AND CAPITAL GAIN SHOWN BY THE AS SESSEE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS AS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HE FILED RETURN DECLA RING AN INCOME OF RS.18,11,100/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECT ED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OF FICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS RS.30 L ACS IN CASH IN THE FORM OF RS.15 LACS EACH ON 21.04.2008 AND 24.04.200 8. THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOS ITS. IN REPLY THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD SURRENDERED AN AMOUN T OF RS.1. CRORE DURING THE SURVEY OPERATIONS ON 19.02.2008 AND HE H AD DEPOSITED RS.69 LACS IN CASH DURING THE ASST. YEAR 2008-09 AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF THE SURRENDER AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE RS.30 LACS WAS DEPOSITED IN TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SURRE NDER AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ADVANCES T O DIFFERENT PARTIES FOR PURCHASE OF LAND WHICH COULD NOT BE MATERIALIZE D WITH THESE PARTIES AND THEREFORE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BACK AND WAS DEPO SITED IN BANK ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT A CCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAIL ED TO JUSTIFY THAT THOSE DEEDS WERE NOT MATERIALIZED AND THE SAME AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BACK OR HOW THE ABOVE CASH WAS GENERATED WHILE ON THE DATE OF SURVEY THERE WAS NO CASH WITH THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY A SSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVIDED DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A GAINST WHICH ITA NO.104 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 3 ADVANCES WERE MADE AND NOR THE NAMES AND ADDRESS OF PERSONS TO WHOM ADVANCES WERE GIVEN WAS PROVIDED. IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.30 LACS. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSE SSEE HAD DECLARED CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.3,42,600/- ON SALE OF LAND OF 45 0 SQ. YARDS OUT OF THE 750 SQ. YARDS PURCHASED ON 16.04.2004. HE SHOW CAUS ED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE SALE AND PURCHASE DEEDS AND OTHER RELEV ANT DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM FOR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE FOLLOWING REPLY. THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD LAND ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE H AD EARNED CAPITAL GAIN. THE PURCHASE DEED FOR 750 SQ. YARDS P URCHASED ON 16.04.2004 HAS ALREADY BEEN FURNISHED. COPY IS AGAI N ENCLOSED. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 450 SQ. YARDS OUT OF THE ABOV E LAND DURING THE YEAR BY MEANS OF RECEIPTS AND POWER OF ATTORNEY , COPIES OF RECEIPTS HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED, COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY DULY EXECUTED AND REGISTERED IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. WE HA VE ALREADY SUBMITTED COPY OF SALE DEED OF LAND FOR BALANCE 300 SQ. YARDS WHICH WAS SOLD ON 30.03.2010 TO YOUR GOOD SELF, COP Y OF WHICH IS AGAIN ENCLOSED. THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNING 750SQ. YARD S OF LAND (COPY OF PURCHASE DEED DULY REGISTERED ALREADY FURN ISHED) SOLD 450SQ. YARDS DURING THE YEAR (COPY OF RECEIPTS & PO WER OF ATTORNEY DULY REG. ENCLOSED) BALANCE LAND 300 SQ. YARDS WAS SOLD ON 30.03.2010, COPY OF SALE DEED ENCLOSED. YOUR GOOD S ELF CAN VERIFY THE PARTICULARS OF LAND FROM PURCHASE DEED, I.E. KH ASRA NO. AND SITUATION OF LAND. ALL THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS ARE DULY AUTHENTIC AND GENUINE. ITA NO.104 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 4 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT PR ODUCED AUTHENTIC PROOF OF SALE OF SAID PROPERTY AND THEREFORE, HE MA DE ADDITION OF RS.4,07,400/- TREATING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS .7,50,000/-. 5. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LEARN ED CIT(A) AND LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED BOTH ADDITIONS BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH ASSESSEES SUBMISSION, ASSE SSMENT ORDER, RELEVANT ITAT ORDER AND VARIOUS DETAILS SUBMITTED B Y THE ASSESSEE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESS HAS RAISED 3 GRO UNDS OF APPEAL AND THE GROUND NUMBER 1 IS GENERAL NATURE AND DOES NOT REQU IRE ANY COMMENT ON THIS GROUND. IN GROUND NUMBER 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS VE HEMENTLY OPPOSED ADDITION OF RS.30,00,000/- FOR CASH DEPOSITED IN BA NK BY THE ASSESSEE ON 21.04.2008 AND 24.04.2008 TREATING IT AS INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS A SURV EY U/S 133A ON 19.02.2008 AND DURING THE SURVEY THE ASSESSEE HAS S URRENDERED A SUM OF RS.L CRORE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ADVANCES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES AND THESE ADVANCES REPRESENTED ASSESSEES BUSINESS INCOME EARNED DURING THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2007-08 AND NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN HIS PERSONAL RECORDS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08. SIMILAR, DISCLOSURE WAS ALS O MADE IN ASSESSEES COMPANY I.E., M/S. VEER COLONIZERS AND BUILDERS PVT . LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS.69,00,000/- DURING LAST ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY & MARCH 2008 AND RS. 30,00,000/- WERE DEPO SITED ON 21.04.2008 AND 25.04.2008 DURING CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSMENT OF SURVEY YEAR WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ACCEPTING SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. HOWEVER, DURIN G PRESENT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THIS DEPOSIT OF RS. 30,00,000/- IN CASH IN APRIL 2008 IN THE BANK OF THE ASSESSEE STAT ING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HI S CLAIM THAT ADVANCES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BACK AND DEALS HAVE NOT MATERIAL IZED. THE AO HAS FURTHER RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ITAT, CHANDIGARH BEN CH, IN THE CASE OF ITO, WARD-1, KURUKSHTRA VS. NEME KUMAR JAIN IN ITA NO. I TA NO. ITA NO.104 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 5 748/CHD/2011 STATING THAT FACTS OF THE ABOVE CASE A RE IDENTICAL AND SUCH CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT ACCEPTED B Y THE ITAT AS COMING OUT FROM SURRENDER INCOME DISCLOSED DURING SURVEY O PTION U/S 133A. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE HONBLE IT AT AND I FIND THAT IN THE ORDER WHICH WAS CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH IN THIS RE GARD, THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN TWO ISSUES ON THE BASIS OF WHICH DECISION HAS BEEN MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE: A) THE HONBLE ITAT HAS PERUSED THE LETTER OF SURRENDE R AND IT CLEARLY REVEALS THAT NO SURRENDER HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE AGAINST THE CASH, AS SURRENDER WAS MADE TO COVER UP ANY DISCREP ANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, LOOSE PAPERS, STOCK, BYPRODUCT, YIELD, OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS. B) NO TAX WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID ADDITIO NAL INCOME OF RS. 14,00,000/- DECLARED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVE Y AS ASSESSEE CHOSE TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE PERIOD IN QUESTIO N DISCLOSING TAXABLE INCOME AT RS. 42,543/-. THUS NO TAX WAS PAID BY THE ASSESS EE ON THE SAID ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 14,00,000/- DECLARED IN SU RVEY AND AS SUCH ASSESSEE AGAIN FINDS SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSIT ON THE IMPUGNED SURRENDER. THUS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT OF HON BLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH IS COMPLETELY ON DIFFERENT FACTS, WHEREAS IN THE PR ESENT CASE SURRENDER WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ADVANCES MADE TO VARIOUS PARTIES AND DISCLOSURE OF INCOME WAS FULLY REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. ONE HAS TO UNDERSTAND ENTRIES TO BE MADE IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH SURVEY DISCLOSURE. NORMALLY, INCOME WILL BE RO UTED THROUGH PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND WILL BE ULTIMATELY CREDITED INTO O WNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND SECOND ENTRY WILL BE IN CASH RECEIVABLE ACCOUN T, AND AS AND WHEN SUCH CASH IS RECEIVED BACK, THIS ACCOUNT WILL BE R OUNDED UP. ONES AO HAS ACCEPTED DISCLOSURE DURING SURVEY ON ACCOUNT OF UNA CCOUNTED CASH RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSESSEE, COMPLETE EFFECT TO THE SAME HAS TO BE GIVEN IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND IF CASH IS RECEIVED AGAINST S UCH UNACCOUNTED ADVANCES IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AS SOURCE OF SUCH CA SH DEPOSITS. THE AO HAS MERELY STATED THAT THE PREDECESSORS AO WAS NOT HAVING THE BENEFIT OF DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH AND IT APPEARS THAT AO HAS NOT ITA NO.104 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 6 EXAMINED DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF S URVEY OF M/S. VEER COLONIZERS AND BUILDERS PVT. LTD. IN WHICH THE ASSE SSEE WAS MANAGING DIRECTOR. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NOT SAID ANY THING AB OUT RS. 69,00,000/- CASH DEPOSITED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 BY THE AS SESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SAME CASH RECEIVABLE. I HAVE GONE THROUGH ASSESSMEN T RECORD AND I FIND THAT AO HAS NOT REOPENED THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT AND HAS NEITHER INFORM THE AO OF M/S. VEER COLONIZER AND BUILDER PVT. LTD. TO TAKE SIMILAR ACCOUNT. IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE AO WAS HIMSELF NOT CONVI NCED ABOUT THE ADDITION. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT APPLICATION OF P ROPER MIND IN THIS REGARD. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 30,00,000/- IS DELETED AS UNTENABLE AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 4,07,400/- BEING DIFFERENCE IN THE TOTAL SALE PRICE OF LAND AN D CAPITAL GAIN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED AUTHENTIC DOCUMENTS OF SALE OF SAID PROPERTY AND HAS TREATED TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION TO THE TUNE OF RS. 7,50,000/- AS INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCE . WHEREAS, ASSESSEE HAS CONTENTED THAT IT HAS FILED REGISTERED LEGAL PU RCHASE DEED OF SAID LAND, COPY OF SALE AGREEMENT AS WELL AS DULY REGISTERED P OWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF BUYER. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THESE DOCUM ENTS ARE AUTHENTIC AND REGISTERED DOCUMENTS ARE AUTHENTIC AND REGISTERED D OCUMENTS WITH THE SUB REGISTER, AMRITSAR. IF THE AO WAS HAVING DOUBT ABOU T THE AUTHENTICITY OF THESE DOCUMENTS, HE COULD HAVE VERIFIED THESE DOCUM ENTS WITH THE SUB- REGISTRAR, AMRITSAR OR HE COULD HAVE ASKED THE ASSE SSEE TO PRODUCE BUYERS ABOUT THE DETAIL OF SAID SALE. THE AO HAS NOT CARRI ED OUT ANY INVESTIGATION AND HAS JUST MADE ADDITION ON CONJECTURE AND PREMIS ES. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT DIRECTED ANY FURTHER DETAILS ASSESSEE SHOULD PR ODUCE IN THIS REGARD AND HAS JUST COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT MAKIN G ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY. IF THERE WAS A DOUBT ABOUT THE SOURCE OF M ONEY, SAME COULD HAVE BEEN VERIFIED FROM THE BUYERS OF THE PROPERTY AND I F THERE WAS A DOUBT REGARDING ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS, SAME COULD HAVE BEE N VERIFIED FROM SUB- REGISTRAR, AMRITSAR. THE AO HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING I N THIS REGARD AND IN VIEW OF SAME THE ADDITION MADE IN THIS REGARD IS DE LETED AS ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTS TO PROVE HIS BONAFID E IN THIS REGARD. ITA NO.104 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 7 6. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS.69,00,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN THE YEAR OF SURRENDER AND BALANCE RS. 31 LAC WAS DEPOSITED AS INCOME TAX, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE HAD NO CASH IN THE PRESENT YEAR TO DEPOSIT THE SAME IN BANK AND THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY TREATED TH E SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH. 8. IN RESPECT OF ANOTHER ADDITION DELETED BY LEARNE D CIT(A), THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFIC ER. 9. THE LEARNED AR IN HIS REPLY SUBMITTED THAT THE A RGUMENT TAKEN BY LEARNED DR THAT REMAINING AMOUNT OUT OF SURRENDER W AS USED TO PAY INCOME TAX WAS NOT THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER AND IN THIS RESPECT HE READ OUT THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF ASSESS ING OFFICER. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE WAS SURRENDERED AND SURRENDER WAS ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS UNACCOUNTED ADV ANCES BY ASSESSEE TO VARIOUS PARTIES WHICH WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT. OUT OF WHICH RS.69 LACS WAS RECEIVED BACK IN THE YEAR O F SURVEY ITSELF AND THEREFORE, SAME WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND IT WAS ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.31 LACS WAS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OUT OF WHICH RS. 30 LACS WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK AND RS. 1 LAC WAS SPENT ON HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND THEREFORE, THE DEPOSITS I N BANK WAS FULLY EXPLAINED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT RELIANCE PLACE D BY ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO.104 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 8 ON THE CASE LAW OF NEME KUMAR JAIN IN ITA NO.748/CH D/2011 IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON THE FACTS AS IN THAT CASE THE SU RRENDER WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUN T AND LOOSE PAPER WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE THE SURRENDER WAS M ADE ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS UNACCOUNTED ADVANCES MADE BY ASSESSEE TO VA RIOUS PARTIES. 10. AS REGARDS THE OTHER ADDITION, THE LEARNED AR S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED COMPLETE DOCUMENTS AND IN THIS R ESPECT ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE THE REPLY OF ASSE SSEE WAS NOTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE FIRST ISS UE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH RS.30 LACS IN BANK ACCOUNT, WE FIND THAT DURING SUR VEY OPERATIONS THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE AN D SUCH SURRENDER WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ADVANCES MADE BY ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. THESE FACTS ARE VERIFIABLE FR OM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPROD UCED THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF SURRENDER OF ADDITIONAL I NCOME. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE RELEVANT CONTENTS OF SUCH AFFIDAVIT ARE REPRODUCED BELOW. 1. THAT SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 133A IN THE CASE OF MY COMPANY M/S. VEER COLONIZERS & BUILDERS P. LTD ON 1 9.02.2008 AND CERTAIN INCRIMINATING PAPERS WERE FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. 2. THE SURVEY PARTY CONFRONTED ME WITH CERTAIN PAP ERS INCLUDING THE PAPERS RELATING TO THE UNACCOUNTED ADVANCES PAID BY ME IN CASH FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES IN ANTICIPATION OF MAKING PR OFITS. ITA NO.104 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 9 3. THAT THESE ADVANCES REPRESENTED MY OWN BUSINES S INCOME EARNED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AND NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN MY OWN PERSONAL RECORDS & BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2007-08. FROM THE ABOVE CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVIT, WE FIND THAT SURRENDER IN THIS CASE WAS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS OR IN SOME LOOSE PAPERS IMPOUNDED DURING THE SURVEY BUT I T WAS SPECIFICALLY ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ADVANCES MADE BY ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED RS.69 LACS OUT OF SUCH ADVANCES IN THE EARLIER YEAR WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK AND WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) AND THE REMAINING AMOU NT OF RS.30 LACS WAS DECLARED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN THE CURRENT Y EAR WHICH WAS ALSO DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE, THE AM OUNT OF 30 LACS IS FULLY EXPLAINABLE. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE NOT COMPARABLE WI TH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, WE DI SMISS THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL. 12. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2 OF APPEAL, WE FIND THAT DESPITE REPLY GIVEN BY ASSESSEE AND NOTED BY US IN THE ORDER ITSELF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT FURTHER REQUIRING ASSESSE E TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING WHICH HE DESIRED TO BE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS MADE A CLEAR FINDINGS OF FACT AND HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAME AND THEREFORE , WE DO NOT SEE ANY ITA NO.104 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 10 INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) TO THIS EXTENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE GROUND NO.2 IS ALSO DISMISSED. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST JANUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER DATED:21.01.2016. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.