ACIT, Ludhiana V. Sh.Jasbir Singh, Malerkotla

ITA 1126/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8725 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR AMARVIR SINGH
• Keywords: Source of fund
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1126/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE ACIT, VS SHRI JASBIR SINGH CIRCLE IV, MALERKOTLA LUDHIANA PAN NO. AFIPS0307R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : DR. AMARVIR SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL DATE OF HEARING : 12/01/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/01/2015 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.6.2010 OF CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-II HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,14,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOANS AS THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE TO THE SATISFACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-II HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,50,000/- BEING THE BALANCE B ROUGHT FORWARD FROM FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 IN RESPECT OF ADVANCE FOR LAND PURCHASED AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE SAME DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2 3. GROUND NO.1 : AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED THAT A LOAN A MOUNTING TO RS. 13,14,000/- WAS TAKEN FROM SHRI RANDHIR SINGH. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY, IT WAS STATED THAT A JOINT LAND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH H IS BROTHER SHRI JARNAIL SINGH AND SHRI JASBIR SINGH WAS SOLD AGAINST WHICH THREE DEMAND DRAFTS WERE RECEIVED AMOUNTING TO RS. 13,14,000/- EACH. THE PROCEEDS REC EIVED BY SHRI RANDHIR SINGH WAS GIVEN AS LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE FAMILY SETTLEMENT AND THE AMOUNT WAS SHOWN AS LOAN. SINCE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE EXCEPT THE AFFIDAVIT, THIS AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- (4) IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE APPELLANT RECEIVED RS. 13,!4,000/ - AS INTEREST FREE LOAN REPAYABLE ON DEMAND FROM SHRI RANDHIR SINGH SON OF SH JANG SINGH VPO SANGALA VIDE CHEQUES NO. 628170. SH RANDHIR SINGH I S REAL BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND IS AGRICULTURIST AND POSSESSES ENOUGH LAND OF ITS OWN. COPY OF FARDAD OF SHRI RANDHIR SINGH FOR ESTABLISHING HIS C REDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS ATTACHED HEREWITH . CONFIRMED COPY OF ACCOUNT ALONGWITH HIS PAN AND ADDRESS WERE FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ARE AGAIN BEING FILED HEREWITH. (5) THE SAID LOAN OF RS. 13,14,000/- WAS GIVEN BY SHRI RANDHIR SINGH OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF ONE AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAG E SAOHPUR SANGAM, DHRI ROAD, TEHSIL MALERKOTLA SOLD VIDE SALE DEED NO. 233 9 DATED 31.10.2006. CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SALE DEED IS BEING ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THE SAID LAND WAS OWNED BY THE FAMILY SINCE LONG I.E. MORE THAN 1 3 YEARS AND SHARE OF JASVIR SINGH ALSO BELONGED TO SHR RANDHIR SINGH AS SETTLED IN BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN THE ORAL FAMILY SETTLEMENT. HOWEVER, T HIS FACT DO NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON REVENUE AS THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IS SITUA TED OUTSIDE THE NOTIFIED AREA AS SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 2(14)(III) AND HENC E OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF CAPITAL GAIN. AFFIDAVIT OF SH RANDHIR SINGH IS BEIN G ATTACHED HEREWITH. (6) AS A RESULT OF THE SAID DOCUMENTS BEING FILED B EFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE SAME NO CAUSE EXISTS AS TO RECOURSE TO THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 IN AS MUCH AS THE ONUS ON THE APPELLANT VIS-A-VIS THE GENUINENESS OF THE 3 TRANSACTION AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PARTY HAS BEEN EFFECTIVELY AND COMPLETELY DISCHARGED. A MERE PERUSAL OF THE SAID D OCUMENTS WOULD REVEAL THAT THE ONUS ON THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO THE D UTIES ENJOINED UPON IT REGARDING RECEIPT OF UNSECURED LOANS HAVE BEEN FUL FILLED AND DISCHARGED AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS RE GARDING THE UNSECURED LOANS. AS SUCH THE SAID ADDITION IS NEITHER WARRANT ED NOR JUSTIFIED OR SUSTAINABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THIS CON NECTION IT MAY ALSO BE AGAIN REITERATED EVEN AT THE COST OF REPUTATION, THAT THE CREDITOR IS INCOME TAX ASSESSES WHOSE IDENTITY IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AND THERE IS NO IOTA OF DOUBT AS TO HIS CREDIT WORTHINESS. THE FACT THAT NO INTERE ST BEING PAID TO HIM IS ALSO OF NO CONSEQUENCE IN THIS REGARD. 5. SOME CASE LAWS WERE ALSO RELIED. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND FORCE IN THESE SUBMISSIONS AND DELETED THE ADDITION. 6. BEFORE US, LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RE ITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUPPORTED THE IMP UGNED ORDER. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULL Y WE FIND THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED VIDE PARA 5 BY LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS AS UNDER:- 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF T HE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORD. AS BROUGHT OUT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ID. COUNSEL SHRI RAN DHIR SINGH IS A REAL BROTHER OF THE APPELLANT. HE IS SHOWN TO BE AG RICULTURIST POSSESSING ENOUGH LAND OF HIS OWN. THOUGH THE A.O. HAS RECORDED THAT ONLY AFFIDAVIT OF THE APPELLANT WAS FILED BEFO RE HIM IN RESPECT OF THIS CREDIT, AS EXPLAINED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION S OF THE ID. COUNSEL, CONFIRMED COPY OF ACCOUNT ALONGWITH PAN AN D ADDRESS OF THE CREDITOR SHRI RANDHIR SINGH WERE ALSO DULY FILE D BEFORE THE ID. A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. C OPIES OF THESE DOCUMENTS WERE ALSO FILED DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS . THE ID. COUNSEL HAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE LAND WHICH W AS SOLD WAS 4 OWNED BY THE FAMILY FOR MORE THAN 13 YEARS AND THAT SHARE OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS SALE ALSO BELONGED TO SHRI RANDHI R SINGH AS SETTLED IN BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN THE ORAL FAMILY SETTLEMEN T. THEREFORE THOUGH THE DEMAND DRAFT OF RS. 13,14,000/- ISSUED I N FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, HIS SH ARE IN THE SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND BEING ALSO BELONGING TO SHRI RANDH IR SINGH ON ACCOUNT OF FAMILY SETTLEMENT, THIS AMOUNT HAD TO BE SHOWN AS LOAN FROM SHRI RANDHIR SINGH TO THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE SOURCE OF THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 13,14,000/- DEPOSITED IN APPELLANT'S BANK ACCOUNT IS QUITE OBVIOUS. FURTHER SHRI RANDHIR_SINGH IS SHOWN TO BE AN EXISTING INCOME TAX ASSESSEE AND HIS PAN, ADDRESS A ND CONFIRMED COPY OF ACCOUNT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE A.O. BY T HE APPELLANT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE DISCUSSED EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE A.O. AND THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ID. COUNSEL WITH REGARD TO THE CREDIT OF RS. 13,14,000/-, THE DECISION OF THE A.O. IN MAKING THIS ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THIS CREDIT HAS NOT BEEN PROVED BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED. IF THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BROUGHT OUT IN THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AR E EXAMINED WITH RESPECT TO THE RATIO OF DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY TH E ID. COUNSEL IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS REPRODUCED ABOVE, ADDITION OF RS. 13, 14, 000/- MADE BY THE A.O. IS TO BE DELETED. IT IS HELD ACCORDINGLY. ADDITION OF RS. 13, 14,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. IN RE SPECT OF THE CREDIT IN THE NAME OF SHRI RANDHIR SINGH IS THEREFO RE DELETED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 9. IN OUR OPINION, LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY ADJUDIC ATED THE ISSUE BECAUSE SHRI RANDHIR SINGH IS AN EXISTING INCOME-TAX ASSESS EE AND A CONFIRMATION SHOWING HIS PAN NO. WAS FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFI CER, THEREFORE, WE FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND WE C ONFIRM THE SAME. 10. GROUND NO.2 : AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM THE LIST OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES, IT WAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, SHARE OF KJISAN COLONIZERS (P) LTD, KISSAN ENCLAVE (REGD), KISSAN FINANCE (REG D) AND ADVANCES FOR LAND PURCHASED. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDE NCE REGARDING THESE 5 INVESTMENTS AND THEREFORE, THE SUM OF RS. 20,50,000 /- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. ON APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS MAINLY SUBMI TTED AS UNDER:- IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS SUBMITTED THAT STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCIAL Y EARS 2001-02 TO 2005-06 WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER CURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. INVESTMENT MA DE SINCE 01.04.2002 IN VARIOUS CONCERNS IN WHICH THE APPELLA NT IS PARTNER / DIRECTOR WAS MADE FROM YEAR TO YEAR FROM EXPLAINED SOURCES OF INCOME I.E. FROM AMOUNT OF CAPITAL AVAILABLE AS ON 31.03.2002 AS DECLARED IN INCOME TAX RETURN DULY FILLED WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND ASSESSED. COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE A/Y 200 2-03 WITH ITS ANNEXURES WAS FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER VIDE LETTER DATED 03.12.2009. SINCE THEN NO CAPITAL ACCRETION H AS TAKEN PLACE EXCEPT THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS / INCOMES WHICH ARE DU LY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME OVER THE YEARS DULY FILLED WITH THE DEPARTMENT. ALL THE CONCERNS IN WHICH THE APPELLANT IS PARTNER / DIRECTOR ARE ASSESSED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1. THE VARIOUS INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN VARIOUS YEAR S TOOD DULY EXPLAINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THE A/Y 2002- 03 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. IN A NUTSHELL, THE VARIOUS INVESTMENTS MADE SUCH AS IN FIRMS/COMPANIES IN WHICH THE APPELLANT IS A PARTNER /DIRECTOR AND OTHER ITEMS SUCH AS ADVANCE FOR LAND IN EARLIER YEA R STOOD DULY EXPLAINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE FOLLOWING SOURCES. (A) INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE A/Y 2002-03 AND THE A NNEXURES THERETO DISCLOSING THE ACCUMULATED BALANCES AS AT 31.03.200 2. (B) INCOMES DECLARED IN THE INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS I.E. A/YS 2003-04 TO A/Y 2006-07. (5) AS A RESULT OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS BEING FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE DOC UMENTARY EVIDENCE VIS--VIS THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS HAS BEEN DULY FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. IN ADDITION, THE SAID 6 ADVANCE FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND WAS MADE IN EARLIE R YEARS CANNOT HAVE ANY BASIS ON THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR T HE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. IT IS AGAIN RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AND REIT ERATED THAT THE SAID ADVANCE FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND PERTINENT TO EARLIER YEARS AND STOOD DULY EXPLAINED AND ACCORDINGLY DOES NOT WARRA NT ANY KIND OF ADVERSE INFERENCE. (6) MOREOVER, IT MAY ALSO BE SUBMITTED THAT AN ADVA NCE MADE CANNOT, PER-SE, BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AN ADDITIO N. ADVANCE MADE FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY SOU RCE OF INCOME BUT IS AN ASSET WHICH CANNOT BE DISALLOWED/ADDED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. (7) IN THIS CONNECTION YOUR HONOURS KIND ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. PRAMESHWAR BOHRA [(2 008)301ITR 404 (RAJ)] WHEREIN IT HAS CLEARLY BEEN HELD THAT AN Y SUM CARRIED FORWARD FROM A PRECEDING YEAR CANNOT BE HELD TO BE AN INVESTMENT GENERATED DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. (8) AS SUCH THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,50,000/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS NEITHER WARRANTED NOR SUSTAINA BLE KEEPING IN VIEW BOTH THE FACTUAL AS WELL AS THE LEGAL POSITION AS OUTLINED ABOVE. 12. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S DELETED THE ADDITION. 13. BEFORE US LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F ASSESSING OFFICER 14. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE R EITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HE FURTHER RELI ED ON THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS SHRI JASPAL SING (ITA NO. 11 28/CHD/2010 ORDER DATED 24.02.2014) WHEREIN IN THE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES TH E ADDITION WAS DELETED IN THE ASSESSEES BROTHER CASE. 7 15. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARA 7 TO 7.2. FURT HER, IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 11 28/CHD/2010 IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS JASPAL SINGH (SUPRA) AND THE SAME WAS ADJUD ICATED VIDE PARAS 7 & 8, WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFU LLY. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARA 6 TO 6 .3 WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORD. THOUGH THE A.O. HAS MADE THIS ADDITION ON THE GROUN D THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE BALANCE BROUGHT FORWARD IN R ESPECT OF ADVANCE FOR LAND PURCHASED AT RS. 37,00,000/- COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED, IT IS EXPLAINED IN DETAIL IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL REPRODUCED ABOVE THAT INVESTMENT S MADE UPTO 01.04.2002 IN VARIOUS CONCERNS IN WHICH THE AP PELLANT IS PARTNER/DIRECTOR WAS MADE FROM EXPLAINED SOURCES OF INCOME IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS. THIS IS STATED TO B E DECLARED IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03 AND WHICH IS FURTHER STATED TO HAVE BE EN DULY ASSESSED. AFTER 31.03.2002, NO CAPITAL ACCRETION IS SHOWN TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE AND ONLY THE AMOUNTS OF PROFIT/INC OME FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE RESPECTIVE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED WITH THE DEPARTM ENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AGREE WITH THE LD. COUNSEL THA T THE POSITION IS DULY VERIFIABLE FROM THE INCOME TAX RET URN FILED FOR 2002-03 AND THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN F ILED FOR A.Y. 2003-04 TO A.Y. 2006-07. FROM THIS EVIDENCE IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE ASSET IN QUESTION BEING ADVANCE OF R S. 37,00,000/- CLAIMED TO BE MADE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND IN A.Y. 2006-07 WAS OUT OF DECLARED SOURCES OF INCOME OF TH E APPELLANT. I AGREE WITH THE LD. COUNSEL THAT IN VIE W OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSED POSITION ITSELF THE ADDL. CIT CANNO T BE SAID TO BE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 37,00 ,000/- 6.1 ANOTHER IMPORTANT ASPECT HIGHLIGHTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL IS THAT THE ADVANCE IN QUESTION PERTAINED T O THE EARLIER YEARS AND IT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD IN THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IF, SOURCES OF THIS ADVAN CE ARE TAKEN TO BE NOT EXPLAINED, ADDITION IF ANY COULD ON LY BE MADE IN THE RELEVANT PRECEDING YEAR DURING WHICH TH E SAID INVESTMENT WAS ACTUAL MADE. THE FACT WITH REGARD TO THIS INVESTMENT HAVING BEEN MADE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR B EING QUITE OBVIOUS AND CLEAR AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO, AGAIN ADDITION OF RS. 37,00,000/- COULD NOT BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6.2 IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE THERE IS FURTHER CONSIDERA BLE FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT AN ADVANCE MADE CANNOT PER-SE BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AN ADDI TION. THIS IS BEING AN ASSET CANNOT BE DISALLOWED/ADDED I N THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SO LONG THE CORRESPONDING SO URCES OF INCOME/ACCRETIONS ON THE LIABILITY SIDE OF THE B ALANCE 8 SHEET ARE NOT DISTURBED. FROM THIS ANGLE ALSO ADDIT ION OF RS. 37,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 6.3 KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE DISCUSSED POSITION AD DITION OF RS. 37,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. CANNOT BE HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED AT ALL AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DELETE D. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. 8. IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY ADJ UDICATED THE ISSUE. WHEN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF EARLIER YEARS CLEA RLY SHOWS THAT ADVANCE FOR LAND WAS GIVEN IN EARLIER YEARS THEN ADDITION C ANNOT BE MADE IN THE PRESENT YEAR, THEREFORE, WE FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE SAME. 16. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE IN OUR OPINION, LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY DECIDED THE ISSUE AND, THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/01/2015. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 21 ST JANUARY, 2015 RKK COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR