ACIT, Nainital V. Shri Jeewan Chandra Punetha, Uttrakhand

ITA 1174/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86938 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 02-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KUNUNJNA
• Assessee Lawyers: RUPESH K SEHGAL
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 133A

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN (DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S.V.MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1152//DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-0 9) JEEWAN CHANDRA PUNETHA VS. DCIT CLOTH MERCHANT KHARI BAZAR, LOHAGHAT CHAMPAWAT NAINITAL ITA NO. 1174//DEL/201 2 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-0 9) ACIT VS. JEEWAN CHANDRA PUNETHA GOLGHAR LOHAGHAT, BARA BAZAR CHAMPAWAT NAINITAL UTRAKHAND PAN : ANXPP8448D ITA NO. 1485/DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) LATE SH. GANESH SHANKER PUNETHA VS. ITO TH. L/H SH. JIWAN CHANDRA PUNETHA WARD PITHORAGARH CLOTH MERCHANT, KHARI BAZAR, PITHORAGARH LOHAGHAT, CHAMPAWAT UTTRAKHAND PAN : ANZPP8447N (APPLICANT) ( RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 2 ASSESSEE BY : SH. RUPESH K. SEHGAL, CA REVENUE BY : SH. P.DAM KUNUNJNA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 03.03.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 .03.2015 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE THREE APPEALS PERTAINING T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) II DEH RADUN DATED 27.12.2011 AND 14.01.2013 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE COMMON AND INTER-RELATED ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPE ALS, THESE WERE TAKEN UP TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP TO ITA NO. 1152/DEL/201 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER :- 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-I I), DEHRADUN HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PARTLY CO NFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN UPHOLDING THAT OUT OF T HE TOTAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY CARRIED ON IN THE SAME PREMISES, 50% BELONGING TO THE FATHER AND SON RESPECTIVELY WITHOU T ANY BASIS ON ASSUMPTIONS AND SURMISES COMPLETELY IGNORI NG ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 3 THE DETAILS AND FACTS FURNISHED AND VERIFIED DURING ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THUS CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 256,001/- ON A/C OF SUPPRESSED PROFIT AS PER IMPOUNDED MATERIAL. 2. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON TH E FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 177,6 85/- U/S 40A(3) IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS IN THE ACCOUNTS O F THE FIRM M/S PUNETHA VASTRA BHANDAR OWNED BY THE FATHER OF T HE ASSESSEE UPHOLDING 50% BELONGING TO FATHER AND 50% BELONGING TO SON (ASSESSEE) WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 3. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON T HE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 401,1 12/- AS UNDISCLOSED SUNDRY DEBTORS OF THE FIRM M/S PUNETHA VASTRA BHANDAR OWNED BY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE UPHOLDI NG 50% BELONGING TO FATHER AND 50% BELONGING TO SON (ASSESSEE) WITHOUT ANY BASIS EVEN AFTER PHYSICALLY VERIFYING THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL. 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND O N THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 160,273/- AS CASH FOUND DURING SURVEY OF THE FIRM M/S PUNETHA VASTRA BHANDAR OWNED BY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE UPHOLDING 50% BELONGING TO FATHER AND 50% BELONGING TO SON (ASSESSEE) WITHOUT ANY BASIS EVEN AFTER PHYSICA LLY VERIFYING THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL CONTAINING DAY BOO K / DEBTORS LEDGER CONFIRMING THE RECEIPT OF SUCH CASH AS COLLECTION FROM VARIOUS DEBTORS IN THE BOOKS & RECO RDS OF M/S PUNETHA VASTRA BHANDAR. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCE AND CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 250,000/- O N THE GROUND THA THE DONOR DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT INCOME IN THE ENSUING YEAR IGNORING COMPLETELY THE PAST ASSESSMEN T RECORDS AND CASH FLOWS / CONFIRMATION SUBMITTED DUR ING BOTH THE PROCEEDINGS. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCES AND CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 160,000/- ON THE ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 4 GROUND THAT THE ASESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE SAME BEING RECEIVED FROM SHRI RAJ BAHADUR CHAND, AN INCOME TAX ASSESSEE WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE TRANSFER IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN WRITING, FOR HI S BROTHER WHO WAS ALSO EXAMINED ON OATH BY THE LD. AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALSO ERRED IN IGNORING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND STATEMENT ON OATH OF SHRI GIRISH CHANDRA SHARMA CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 50 ,000/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE T O PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PERSON WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION PERSONALLY ON OATH BEFORE LD. AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 8. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, MO DIFY, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJU DICE TO EACH OTHER. 3. BRIEFLY, STATED FACTS ARE THAT A SURVEY A CTION U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE REVENUE AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI JEEWAN CHANDRA PUNETHA. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSE SSEE FILED A RETURN DECLARING NET TAXABLE INCOME AT RS. 1,87,469 /- ON 24.12.2008. THE CASE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY, ASSESSMENT AN D THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFTER REFER TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED. THEREBY THE ASSESSING O FFICER MADE VARIOUS DISALLOWANCE / ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF SUP PRESSION OF PROFIT ON THE BASIS OF IMPOUNDED MATERIAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,79,999/-, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 40A(3) OF ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 5 THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,80,069/-, ADDITION ON AC COUNT OF UNDISCLOSED SUNDRY DEBTORS AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,02,22 3/-, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY IN TRADING ACCOUNT, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,20,546/-, ADDI TION ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING DIFFERENCE IN BALANCE SHEET IN RESPECT OF ASSET, UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,60,000/-, UNEXPLA INED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 50,000/- AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE S BENAMI DEPOSIT OF RS. 8,70,000/-. 4. AGAINST THIS ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFO RE LD. CIT(APPEAL) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING HIS SUBMISSIONS TREATED 50% OF BUSINESS BEING CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF ADDITIO N OF RS. 7,79,999/-, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) REDUCED THE ADDITION TO RS. 2,5 6,001/-, IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 380,069/-. A DIRECTION WAS ISSU ED TO THE AO THAT SUPPRESSED PROFIT BE DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS HENCE THE ADDITION OF 50% WAS SUSTAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, IN RESP ECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 8,02,223/-, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF ADDITION. IN RESPECT OF ADDITIO N RS. 84,466/-, THIS WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS), IN RESPEC T OF ADDITION OF RS. 3,20,546/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 6 THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 50% IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 5,25,000/- THE DIFFERENCE FOUND IN BALANCE SHEET THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,75,000/- AND SU STAINED ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/-. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,60 ,000/-, IT WAS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND ADDITION ON A CCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 50,000/- WAS ALSO SUSTAINED. HOWEV ER, THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 8,70,000/-, WAS DE LETED FROM THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. FIRST GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AG AINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 2, 56,601/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED PROFIT AS PER IMPOUNDED MATERIAL. LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF THE BU SINESS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY ASSISTING HIS FATHER, WHO WAS ILL ON THE DATE OF SURVEY. HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN OTHE RWISE ALSO NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE FATHER AND SON OF RS. 4,23,1 20/- IS @ 9.75% MUCH ABOVE THE PRESUMED RATE OF 5% U/S 44 AF OF THE ACT. 6. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. HE SUBMI TTED THAT THE ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 7 ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT EVEN IF ANY BUSINESS IS TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ASSESSEE IT SHOULD NOT BE MORE TH AN 25%. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY ASSESSED, THE ENTIRE SUPPRESSED PROFIT IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS THERE WAS NO SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS MAINTAINED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ONE OF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TH AT HE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RETAIL TRADE, AND ITS TOTAL TURN OVER DID NOT EXCEED THE PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT. THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE COM PUTED PROFIT @ 5% OF TOTAL TURN OVER AS PRESCRIBED U/S 44AF OF T HE ACT. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED IN RETURN OF INCOME TH AT IT IS ENTITLED FOR THE RATE AS PRESCRIBED U/S 44AF OF THE ACT FOR COM PUTING THE BUSINESS PROFIT. THEREFORE, AT THIS STAGE, THIS CO NTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND SAM E IS REJECTED. 8. ANOTHER CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT TH ERE IS NO BASIS TO ATTRIBUTE 50% OF THE PROFIT TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 8 THAT HE HAS BEEN CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY FROM THE SAME PREMISES. NO EVIDENCE IS PLACED ON RECORD PROVING T HE VOLUME OF BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS GI VEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT NO SEPARATE STOCK WAS MAIN TAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FATHER. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS CONTENTION IS CONTRARY TO THE RECORDS. IT IS ADMIT TED POSITION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS, THEREFORE THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN COMPUTING THE PROFIT ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. HENCE, WE SEE NO REA SON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. APROPOS, THE GROUND NO. 2, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS THIS GROUN D. THEREFORE, THE GROUND NO. 2 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 10. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL IS AGAINST CONF IRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 4,01,112/- . LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THERE ARE NOT UNDISCLOSED DEBTORS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THER E IS NO CONCEALED SALES, WAS FOUND. HE, FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SALES ESTIMATED AT RS. ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 9 44,26,250/- AGAINST DISCLOSED SALES OF RS. 42,36,20 8/- PROFIT OF WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED. HE SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT( APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THIS ADDITION. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TAXED TWICE. ON THE CONTRARY, LD . SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 8.1 IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER READS AS UNDER - : THE LD. AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS BEEN CONTENT WITH DENYING OWNERSHIP OF THESE AMOUNTS SINCE THEY ARE CLAIMED TO BELONG TO THE FATHER. IT IS SEEN THAT NO BASIS WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR SUCH A DENIAL CONSIDE RING THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT BOTH FATHER AN D SON WERE CARRYING OUT BUSINESS ACTIVITIES FROM THE SAME PREM ISES. IN VIEW OF THIS POSITION ON THE BASIS OF FINDING GIVEN EARLIER FOR APPORTIONMENT OF AMOUNTS BETWEEN THE TWO BUSINESSES , IT IS HELD THAT 50% OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT (RS. 8,02,223/2=4,01,112) AT RS. 4,01,112/- IS SUSTAINED AND THE REMAINING HAS TO BE CONSIDERED SHALL BE ISSUED LATER IN THIS APPELLATE ORDER. 11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITION ON T HE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER FURNISHED LIST OF SUNDRY DEBTORS AS ON 31.03.2008 NOR COULD HE EXPLAIN THE SUNDRY DEBTORS DESPITE V ARIOUS OPPORTUNITES. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 10 THAT EVERYTHING WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THERE WAS NO UNDISCLOSED SUNDRY DEBTORS. HE DREW OUR ATTE NTION TO PAPER BOOK PAGE NOS. 91, 92 AND 98 TO DEMONSTRATE THAT DE BTORS WERE RECORDED AND DULY EXPLAINED. WE FIND THAT THE LD. C IT(APPEAL) HAD OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGES 60 TO 61 THAT THE DEBTORS WERE NOT DISCLO SED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THESE DEBTORS ARE DULY EXPLAINED A ND THIS CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL. THEREFORE, TH ERE WAS NO OCCASION TO MAKE ADDITION IN THIS RESPECT. AFTER CO NSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS THAT IF THE SALES EFFECTED TO THESE DEBTORS HAS BEEN INCLUDED INTO THE SUPPRESSED SALES AND ADDITION MAD E THEREOF. THEREFORE, IT WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO THE REVENUE TO M AKE ADDITION OF SAME AMOUNT. THIS ASPECT REQUIRES VERIFICATION BY THE LD. AO, THEREFORE THIS GROUND IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR VERIFICATION. THE AO IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO VERIFY WHETHER SALES EFFEC TED TO THE DEBTORS IN QUESTION IS INCLUDED INTO THE SUPPORTED SALES OR NOT AND PROFIT ON SUCH SALES IS ESTIMATED OR NOT. IF AO FINDS THAT SA LES HAVE BEEN INCLUDED HE WOULD DELETE THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 11 12. GROUND NO. 4 TH IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,60,273/- LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY HAS BEEN DULY EXP LAINED. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 156 ON THE CO NTRARY, LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 12.1. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL ON THE RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNT COULD NOT BE SATISFACTORY EXPLAINED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IN CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE AMOUNT SO FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS IN FACT COLLECTION MADE IN RES PECT OF SALES. THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT IN THE IMPOUNDED MAT ERIAL COLLECTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ITSELF THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THAT THE CASH SO FOUND WAS OUT OF THE SALES COLLECTIONS. TH IS FACT REQUIRES TO BE VERIFIED AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR VERIFICATION, WHE THER THE CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS COLLECTION OF THE SALE AMOUNT. IN CASE, THE AMOUNT PERTAINS TO SALE COLLECTION SAM E BE DELETED. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSE. ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 12 13. GROUND NO. 5 IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION O F ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/- LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION SINCE THESE DEPOSITS / GIFTS PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007- 2008. THEREFORE, SAME CANNOT BE SUBJECT MATTER OF ADDITIO N OF ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. SR. DR SUPP ORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 13.1. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THE LD. CIT(A PPEAL) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE GIFT GIVEN BY FATHER IS NOT PROVE D AND OBSERVED THAT THE TOTAL GIFTS FAR EXCEEDED THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE DONOR AND THUS CANNOT BE HELD TO BE EXPLAINED. IT WAS INCUMBENT UP ON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUP PORT OF ITS CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINE SS OF THE DONORS. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GIVEN A FINDING ON FACT THAT THE DONORS WERE NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT FUND TO GIVE GIFTS TO TH E ASSESSEE. THIS FINDING ON FACT IS NOT REBUTTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY PLACING ANY CONTRAY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY R EASON TO INTERFERE INTO FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) TO THIS EXTENT. HOWEVER, THE ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 13 CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS T HAT THESE GIFTS / BALANCES PERTAIN TO EARLIER YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THIS FACT REQUIRES VERIFICATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. WE HEREBY DIRECT AO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. I N CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS THAT DEPOSITS PERTAIN TO EA RLIER YEAR, HE WOULD DELETE THE SAME. HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE OPEN TO REVEN UE TO TAX THE SAME IN RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IF LAW SO PERMITS. THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR T HE STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. GROUND NO. 6 : THE GROUND NO. 6 IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,60,000/-. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MA KING ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS DEMONSTRATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT BELONGED TO ONE SHRI RAJ BAHADUR CHAND WHO CONFIRM ED THE SAME. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED IN S UPPORT THEREOF, THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION. HE S UBMITTED THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN KARNATAKA WHERE THE APPELLANT HAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO INQUIRY WAS M ADE FROM THE DEPOSITOR, THE DEPOSITOR IS HAVING PAN. ON THE CO NTRARY LD. SR. DR ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 14 SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION. 14.1. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE REVE NUE HAS NOT PLACED ANYTHING ON RECORD SUGGESTING THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOS ITED BY RAJ BAHADUR CHAND IN FACT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. O N THE CONTRARY, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF BANK STATEMENT ETC., THEREFORE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES A PPEAL IS ALLOWED. 15. APROPOS, TO GROUND NO. 7 : LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS THIS GROU ND. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED 16. GROUND NO. 8 IS GENERAL IN NATURE NEEDS NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. IN THE RESULT OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 17. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE ITA NO. 1174/DEL/2012 FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUN DS OF APPEAL. (I) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY HOLDING THAT ONLY 50% OF THE BUSINESS TURNOVER BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE WHERE AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED IN TH E ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 15 ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ENTIRE BUSINESS TURNOVER RELATES TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY AND LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN A NY JUSTIFICATION AS TO THE BASIS OF APPORTIONMENT OF B USINESS TURNOVER EQUALLY BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FATHE R. (II) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.2,75,OOO/- TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.5,25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY IN BALANCE SHEET WITHOUT FULLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE AND ACCEPTING THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF HIS CLAIM. (III) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.8,70,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCO UNT OF BENARNI TRANSACTION WITHOUT FULLY APPRECIATING THE RELEVANT FACTS, AS DETAILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH HELD SUBSTANTIAL F ORCE IN ESTABLISHING THE DEPOSITS IN BANK A/C BENARNI DEPO SITS OF THE ASSESSEE. 18. THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). THAT OUT OF THE ENTIRE BUSINESS TURNOVE R ONLY 50% BUSINESS TURN OVER BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. LD. SR. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING T HAT ONLY 50% THE BUSINESS TURN OVER BELONGED TO THIS ASSESSEE. HE SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE-SON HAD TREATED THE ENTIRE BUSINESS BELONGING TO HIS SON. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED THE ARGUMENT THAT WERE ADDRESSED I N ITA NO. 1152/DEL/2012 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED THE ARGUMENTS THAT WERE ADDRESSED IN ITA NO. 1152/DEL/2012. HE S UBMITTED THAT ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 16 THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR BIFURCATING BUSINESS TURNOVE R EQUALLY BETWEEN SON AND FATHER. 18.1. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS THE FA CTS ARE IDENTICAL AS WERE IN ITA NO. 1152/ DEL/2012. FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING AS RECORDED IN PARA 8 OF THIS ORDER. WE HEREBY UPHE LD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEAL). THIS GROUND OF REVENUE APPEAL IS REJEC TED. 19. GROUND NO. 2 IS AGAINST THE ALLOWANCE OF R ELIEF OF RS. 2,75,000/-. LD. SR. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A PPEAL) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN A DETAILED FINDING THE SAME BE UPHELD. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL). 19.1. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS GIVEN FINDING ON FACT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 11.1 CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , THIS AMOUNT IS TREATED AS EXPLAINED IN PART ONLY. IT IS SEEN THAT VIDE REPORT DATED 26.09.2011 (WHICH HAS BEEN REBUTT ED BY THE LD. AR) IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE GIFT AMO UNT OF RS. 2,50,000/- SHOWN RECEIVED FROM FATHER DOES NOT STAND PROVED SINCE THERE IS A FINDING THAT SHRI GANESH SH ANKER PUNETHAS TOTAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR WAS RS. 2,30,88 4/- AND HE IS SHOWN TO HAVE EVEN GIFTED AN AMOUNT OF RS, ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 17 270,000/- TO THE WIFE OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS VERY YEAR. THUS THE SUM TOTAL OF GIFTS FAR EXCEEDS THE INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN AND THUS CANNOT BE HELD TO BE EXPLAINED. THU S, OUT OF RS. 5,25,000/-, RS. 2,75,000/- (I.E. 5,25,000 2,50,000=2,75,000) IS HELD AS EXPLAINED AND THE AD DITION TO THIS EXTENT DELETED. THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 2,50,000/- IS UPHELD AS AN ADDITION. THE ABOVE FINDING ON FACT BY THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTE RFERE TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL). SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. TH IS GROUND OF THE REVENUE APPEAL IS REJECTED. 20. GROUND NO. 3 IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITIO N OF RS. 8,70,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF BENAMI TRANSACTIONS. LD. SR. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. HE SUBM ITTED THAT THE PERSONS ON WHOSE NAME THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS HELD WER E NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT MEANS OF INCOME HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER AT PARA 65 HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITE D THE AMOUNTS IN ACCOUNT NO. 10925759010. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE E VIDENCE COLLECTED DURING SURVEY SUGGESTED BENAMI TRANSACTIO N OF ASSESSEE. FURTHER HE SUBMITTED THAT HE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO THE ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 18 RECORDS. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE COULD N OT PROVE THAT THIS AMOUNT IN FACT BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREF ORE, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 20.1. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND P ERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT NO ACTION IS TAKEN AGAINST THE RECORDED BANK ACCOUNT HOLDER, NO INQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO FIND OUT INVOLVEMENT OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(APPEA L) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MERELY AN INTRODUCER OF BANK ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, IT IS TRANSPIRED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT ACCORDING TO MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS THERE WERE CERTAIN DEPOSITS IN ACCOUNT NO. 10925759010. THUS WE ARE NOT ABLE TO ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS MERELY AN INTRODUCED OF THE ACCOUNT IF HE WAS MERE LY INTRODUCES OF THE ACCOUNT THEN HOW THE DETAILS RELATED TO THE ACC OUNT OF THIRD PARTY WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AT HIS PREMIS ES. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AS TO GIVE A CLEAR FINDING IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE WH AT WAS THE BASIS AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM FOR MAKING SUCH A DDITION. ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 19 MOREOVER, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FIN DING ON THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR THE STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 21. NOW WE TAKE UP ITA NO. 1485.DEL.2013. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL READ AS UNDER :- 1. THE REASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO FILE ANY DETAIL OR REBUT FINDING OF CIT (A), IN THE INDIVIDU AL CASE OF SHRI JIWAN CHAND PUNETHA, WHICH WAS THE REASON FOR REASSESSMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF SUCH REASSESSMENT BY CIT (A) IS CONTRARY TO FACTS AND LAW AND THEREFORE THE REASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND IS THEREFORE L IABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHOLDING THAT O UT OF TOTAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY CARRIED ON IN THE PREMIS ES, 50% BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT IS BASED ON HIS FINDING GIVEN IN CASE OF THE INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS OF THE LEGAL HEI R SH. JIWAN CHANDRA PUNETHA IS CONTRARY TO FACTS AND LAW AND THEREFORE, ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) ARE UNLAWFUL AND ARE LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 3. ADDITION OF RS.2,56,001/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF SUPPRESSED PROFIT IS CONTRARY TO FACTS AND LAW AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS UNLAWFUL AND IS LIABLE TO BE DELETE D. 4. ADDITION OF RS 4,01, 112/- MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLOSED SUNDRY DEBTORS IS CONTRARY TO FACTS AND LAW AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS UNLAWFUL AND IS LIAB LE TO BE DELETED. ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 20 5. ADDITION OF RS. 1 ,60,273/- MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF C ASH FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY IS CONTRARY TO FACTS AN D LAW AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS UNLAWFUL AND IS LIABLE T O BE DELETED. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 21.1. APROPOS TO GROUND NO. 1 NO ARGUMENTS WERE ADDRESSED NO SUBMISSION WAS MADE, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 22. APROPOS TO GROUND NO. 2 & GROUND NO 3 : THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES ADOPTED THE ARGUMENT S AS WERE MADE IN ITA NO. 1152/DEL/2012. 22.1. NO CHANGE INTO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, FOR THE SAME REASONING AS GIVEN IN PARA 8 OF THIS ORDER, WHICH I S REPRODUCED HEREINUNDER :- ANOTHER CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THERE IS NO BASIS TO ATTRIBUTE 50% OF THE PROFIT TO THE ASSESSE E. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS BEEN CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY FROM THE SAME PREMISES. NO EVIDEN CE IS PLACED ON RECORD PROVING THE VOLUME OF BUSINESS CAR RIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT NO SEPARATE STOCK WAS MAINTAINED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND HIS FATHER. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS CONTENTION IS CONTRARY TO THE RECORD S. IT IS ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAI NING PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THEREFORE THE AO WAS JUS TIFIED IN ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 21 COMPUTING THE PROFIT ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL A VAILABLE BEFORE HIM. HENCE, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GRO UND OF THE ASSESSSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. WE HEREBY REJECT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. HENCE, GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSEES A PPEAL REJECT. 23. APROPOS TO GROUND NO. 4 THE SIMILAR GROU ND WAS TAKEN IN ITA NO. 1152/DEL/2012 AS GROUND AS GROUND NO. 3. THE RE PRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES HAVE ADOPTED THE SAME ARGUMENT. THER E IS NO CHANGE UNDER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES POINTED OUT. THEREFOR E, FOR THE SAME REASONING AS IN PARA 11 OF THE ORDER WHICH IS REPRO DUCED HEREINAFTER :- THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITION ON THE BAS IS THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER FURNISHED LIST OF SUNDRY DEBT ORS AS ON 31.03.2008 NOR COULD HE EXPLAIN THE SUNDRY DEBTOR S DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITES. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT EVERYTHING WAS EX PLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THERE WAS NO UNDIS CLOSED SUNDRY DEBTORS. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 91, 92 AND 98 TO DEMONSTRATE THAT DEBTORS WERE RECO RDED AND DULY EXPLAINED. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEAL ) HAD OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGES 60 TO 61 THAT THE DEBTORS WERE NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE CONTEN TIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THESE D EBTORS ARE DULY EXPLAINED AND THIS CAN BE INFERRED FROM TH E IMPOUNDED MATERIAL. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO OCCASIO N TO MAKE ADDITION IN THIS RESPECT. AFTER CONSIDERING TH E TOTALITY OF THE FACTS THAT IF THE SALES EFFECTED TO THESE DE BTORS HAS BEEN INCLUDED INTO THE SUPPRESSED SALES AND ADDITIO N MADE THEREOF. THEREFORE, IT WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO TH E REVENUE TO MAKE ADDITION OF SAME AMOUNT. THIS ASPEC T ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 22 REQUIRES VERIFICATION BY THE LD. AO, THEREFORE THIS GROUND IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO TAX VERIFICATION. THE AO IS HEREBY DIRECT TO VERIFY WHETHER SALES EFFECTED TO THE DEBT ORS IN QUESTION IS INCLUDED INTO THE SUPPORTED SALES OR NO T AND PROFIT ON SUCH SALES IS ESTIMATED OR NOT. IF AO FIN DS THAT SALES HAVE BEEN INCLUDED HE WOULD DELETE THE ADDITI ON. ACCORDINGLY THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DIRECTION. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSE. 24. APROPOS TO GROUND NO. 5 :- THE REPRESEN TATIVES OF THE PARTIES HAVE ADOPTED THEIR ARGUMENTS AS WERE IN ITA NO. 1152/DEL/2012. THERE IS NO CHANGE INTO FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES. THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING IN PARA 12. 1 WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E AVAILABLE MATERIAL ON THE RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNT COULD NOT BE SATISFACTORY EXPLAINED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(AP PEAL) CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IN CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE AMOUNT SO FOU ND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS IN FACT COLLECTION MADE IN RESPECT OF SALES. THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT IN THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL COLLECTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ITSELF THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THAT THE CASH SO FOUN D WAS OUT OF THE SALES COLLECTIONS. THIS FACT REQUIRES T O BE VERIFIED AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR VERIFICATION, WHE THER THE CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS COLLECT ION OF THE SALE AMOUNT. IN CASE, THE AMOUNT PERTAINS TO SA LE ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 23 COLLECTION SAME BE DELETED. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO AO TO DECIDE IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DIRECTION. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR TH E STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 25. GROUND NO. 6 IS GENERAL IN NATURE NEEDS N O ADJUDICATION. IN THE RESULT ITA NO. 1152/DEL/2012 IS PARTLY ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, ITA NO. 1174/DEL/2012 IS PARTLY ALLOWED A ND 1485/DEL/2013 IS ALSO PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON WEDNESDAY, 11 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- (S.V.MEHROTRA) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICI AL MEMBER DATED 11 TH MARCH, 2015 B.RUKHAIYAR COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. CIT (ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT N. DELHI ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 24 SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 05.03.2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 05.03.2015 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 . DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ITA NO. 14 85/ DEL/2013, 1152 & 1174.DEL.2012 25