ITO, Patiala V. M/s Mahakali Developers & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Patiala

ITA 120/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5332 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2018
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Tangible material; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B, CHANDIGARH , ! . .., # $, %& BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 120/CHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE ITO, WARD-4, PATIALA M/S MAHAKALI DEVELOPERS & RESORTS PVT LTD., SCO-50, LEELA BHAAWAN, PATIALA ./PAN NO: AABCM6353Q / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ! /ASSESSEE BY : SH. ASHOK GOYAL, CA ' ! / REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR. DR # $ % /DATE OF HEARING : 27.11.2018 &'() % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.01 . 2019 %'/ ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENU E AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2015 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS), PATIALA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE C IT(A) IN QUASHING THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER U/S 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 3. THE BRIEF FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE UNDER CONS IDERATION ARE THAT ORIGINAL RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AS PER SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31. 12.2009 WITH CERTAIN ITA NO. 120/CHD/2018- M/S MAHAKALI DEVELOPERS & RESORTS PVT. LTD, PATIAL A 2 ADDITIONS. DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAD RECEIVED SHARE CAPITAL FROM 04 FOREIGN ENTITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE IDENTITY, CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIO NS OF THE NRI SHARE APPLICANTS ISSUED LETTERS TO THE UNDER SECRETARY, F TD, CBDT (NORTH BLOCK), NEW DELHI THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL ON 12.10.2009. SIN CE, THE CASE WAS GETTING TIME BARRED ON 31.12.2009, THE ASSESSING O FFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 31.12.2009 WITH CERTAIN O THER ADDITIONS. LATER ON, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED INFORMATION ON 2 0.12.2010 FROM THE MAURITIUS REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF ONE SUC H SHARE APPLICANT VIZ. M/S BLESSING INVESTMENT LTD. THE A.O. REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY RECORDING THE REASONS AND BY TAKING PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA. THE REASONS RECORDED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING OF THE CASE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'REASON U/S 147 R.W.S 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 19 61 FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT:- IN THIS CASE, ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED O N 31/12/2009. IN THE OFFICE NOTE OF THE ASSESSMENT O RDER, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT WITH REGARD TO VERIFICATION OF S HARE CAPITAL SUBSCRIBED BY FOREIGN PARTIES, A REFERENCE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PAT IALA RANGE, PATIALA VIDE JCIT/PTA-RNG/2009-10/1648 DATED 23.10.2009 WAS MADE TO FOREIGN TAX DIVISION, CBDT, NEW DELHI, JCIT/PTA-RNG/MISC/19/2010-11/2121 DATED 20.12.2010 REGARDING DETAILS OF ONE OF THE FOREIGN PARTIES I.E. M/S BLESSING INVESTMENTS LIMITED FROM THE MAUR ITIUS REVENUE AUTHORITIES THROUGH FOREIGN TAX DIVISION, C BDT, NEW DELHI. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED ABOUT M/S BLESSING INVESTMENTS LIMITED, THE FOLLOWING FAC TS HAVE COME TO LIGHT WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSES SEE DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143( 3) OF ITA NO. 120/CHD/2018- M/S MAHAKALI DEVELOPERS & RESORTS PVT. LTD, PATIAL A 3 THE ACT, 1961: (I) SHARE CAPITAL INVESTED IN THE CASE OF THE ABOVE ASSESSEE WAS A LOAN RAISED FROM HAWK FREIGHT SERVICES FZE ON THE SAME DAY. AN AMOUNT OF GBP 2,00,100 WAS CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF BLESSING INVESTMENTS LTD., C/O SG FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE SERVICES, AMOND BUILDING, POUDRIERE ST., LOUIS, MAURITIUS ON 12/09/2006 BY HAWK FREIGHT FZE. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON THE SAME DAY, AN AMOUNT OF GBP 2,00,000 WAS CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE M/S MAHAKALI DEVELOPERS AND RESORTS, PATIALA. THE SAME HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS AS SHARE CAPITAL SUBSCRIBED BY M/S BLESSING INVESTMENTS LTD (II) AS PER THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT, M/S B LESSING INVESTMENT HAS SHOWN A SINGLE INVESTMENT OF $401260, THE PAID UP SHARE CAPITAL IS ONLY $1. CAS H GENERATED FROM ITS OPERATIONS IS ONLY $169. FURTHER , IT HAS NIL OPERATING EXPENSES AND HAS BOOKED ONLY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. (III) AS PER THE BANK STATEMENT, M/S BLESSING INVE STMENTS HAS NOT CARRIED OUT A SINGLE TRANSACTION IN THE ENT IRE YEAR EXCEPT THE ONE IN QUESTION. IN THE ENTIRE YEAR , THE MAXIMUM BALANCE MAINTAINED IS ONLY $185. THE ABOVE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT M/S BLESSING INVE STMENTS IS A SHELL ENTITY HAVING NO REAL BUSINESS IN REALIT Y AND IT IS JUST A CONDUIT THROUGH WHICH ASSESSEE HAD INTRODUCE D UNACCOUNTED MONEY THROUGH ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE FULL & TRUE DI SCLOSURE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS IT DID NOT BRING THE ABOVE FACTS ON RECORD DURING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. GIVEN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CHARG EABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE F. Y. 2006-07 RE LEVANT TO THE A. Y. 2007-08 WITHIN MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE REGARDING THE SAME DURING ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER WHICH ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS FRAMED. ITA NO. 120/CHD/2018- M/S MAHAKALI DEVELOPERS & RESORTS PVT. LTD, PATIAL A 4 ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 R.W.S. 151 OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, COMPLETED ASSE SSMENT U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITIONS OF RS. 1,72,85,440/- IN RESP ECT OF SHARE CAPITAL RECEIVED FROM ONE OF THE FOREIGN ENTITY M/S BLESSIN G INVESTMENT LTD HOLDING THAT IT WAS A SHELL ENTITY HAVING NO REAL B USINESS, THROUGH WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD INTRODUCED UNACCOUNTED MONEY. HE NCE, THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE FOREIGN ENTITY M/S BLESSING INVESTMENT LTD WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED AS SUCH U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HOLDING THAT THE INFOR MATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID INVES TMENT BY M/S BLESSING INVESTMENT WAS NOT ADVERSE PER SE WARRANTING REOPE NING OF THE ASSESSMENT ALREADY COMPLETED. THE CONCLUDING PART OF THE OBSE RVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 5.9 BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE CONDITIONS N ECESSARY FOR INITIATING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE THAT THERE MUST BE A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE INFORMATION AND MATERIAL BECOMING AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WHICH ENABLES HIM TO HAVE 'REASON TO BELIEVE' THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE ASSES SING OFFICER CANNOT INITIATE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION, VAGUE OR UNSPECIFIC INFORMA TION. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD N O SPECIFIC BASIS FOR HIS BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABL E TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S ITA NO. 120/CHD/2018- M/S MAHAKALI DEVELOPERS & RESORTS PVT. LTD, PATIAL A 5 INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY FOR THE P URPOSE OF MAKING FURTHER VERIFICATION OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ILLEGAL AND INVALID. THE MACHINERY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COULD NOT BE RESORTED TO F OR COVERING THE LEGAL LACUNA/PROCEDURE OR EVEN FOR PAT CH UP WORK BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE PRESENT CASE , I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THUS, THE INFORMATIO N RECEIVED BY THE AO FROM THE MAURITIUS REVENUE AUTHO RITY WAS NOT ADVERSE PER SE WARRANTING REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ALREADY COMPLETED. FURTHER, IN VIEW OF T HE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE RATIO OF VARIOUS JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. C OUNSEL AS SUMMARIZED ABOVE AND ALSO THE JUDGMENTS OF SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UNWARRANTED AND BAD IN LA W. ACCORDINGLY, I QUASH THE REASSESSMENTS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SE CTION 147. THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED . 6. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ACTION OF THE CIT(A ), THE DEPARTMENT HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. SHRI MANJIT SINGH, LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT FRO M THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM FOREIGN TAX DIVISION, THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS OF THE REASONABLE BELIEF THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS IN FACT THE OWN MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE ROUTED THROUGH SHELL COMPANY. HE HAS RELIED ON MANY CASE LAWS INCLUDING THE RAYMON WOOL EN MILLS VS. ITO 236 ITR 34 (SC) AND GURERA GAS PVT LTD VS CIT 258 ITR 170 (P&H) TO STRESS UPON THAT AT THE STAGE OF FORMING OF BELIE F BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSM ENT, THE COURT SHOULD NOT GO INTO EITHER SUFFICIENCY OR ADEQUACY OF THE M ATERIAL BEFORE ASSESSING ITA NO. 120/CHD/2018- M/S MAHAKALI DEVELOPERS & RESORTS PVT. LTD, PATIAL A 6 OFFICER, WHAT IS TO BE SEEN IS WHETHER THERE WAS A NY PRIMA FACIE SOME MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER CA N FORM A BELIEF THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HE HAS FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE PHOOL CHAND BAJRANG LAL VS. ITO (1993) 69 TAXMAN 627 (SC) TO FURTHER STRESS THE POINT THAT A PARTY CANNOT GET AWAY BY WILLFULLY MAKING A FALSE OR UNTRUE STATEMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THAT WHEN THAT FALSITY COME TO NOT ICE, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO SAY THAT THOUGH MY LIE HAS BEEN DETECTE D BUT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT DO ANY ACTION AT THIS STAGE. THE COURT HELD THAT IT WOULD BE A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE THAT LATI TUDE. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMES INTO POSSESSION OF SUBSEQUENT INFORMA TION, WHICH IS SPECIFIC, RELEVANT AND RELIABLE AND HAS REASONS RECORDED FOR FORMING OF HIS OWN BELIEF THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE MATERIAL FACTS TRULY AND FULLY, AND, THEREFORE, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL HAVE JURISDICTION OF INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 7 & 148 OF THE ACT. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HA S SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ALL THE INFORMATION RELATING TO THE RECEIPT OF SHARE CAPITAL FROM 04 FOREIGN ENTITI ES, CONFORMATION OF THE TRANSACTIONS FROM THE AFORESAID FOREIGN ENTITIES, T HE FOREIGN REMITTANCE CERTIFICATE, BALANCE SHEET, INTIMATION OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA IN THIS RESPECT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, WHATEVER WERE DEMANDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WERE DULY PROVIDED BUT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER COULD NOT FIND ANY FAULT WITH THOSE DOCUMENTS. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD SOUGHT SOME INFORMATION FROM FOREIGN TAX DIVISION O F THE CBDT WHO ITA NO. 120/CHD/2018- M/S MAHAKALI DEVELOPERS & RESORTS PVT. LTD, PATIAL A 7 FURTHER ASKED FOR INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF ABOVE S AID FOREIGN ENTITIES FROM MAURITIUS REVENUE AUTHORITY , BUT THE INFORMATION W AS NOT RECEIVED AND BY THE TIME THE ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING TIME BARRED AND , HENCE, WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER SOME INFORMAT ION WAS RECEIVED, HOWEVER, WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY ADVERSE EVIDENCE OR FACT, ITSELF, DOES NOT GIVE ANY RIGHT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOP EN THE ALREADY CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT. THAT FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST BE POSSESSED OF SOME TANGIBLE MATERIAL SHOWING THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN DONE AFTER FOUR YEARS, HENCE, THE PROVISO OF SECTION 147 COMES INTO OPERATION WHICH P ROVIDE THAT NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN U/S 147 OF THE ACT AFTER EXPIRY OF FOU R YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHA RGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BY REASONS OF THE FAILURE ON TH E PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSA RY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. THE LD. AR THEREAFTER REFERRING TO THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHATEVER INFORMATION THE ASSESSEE WAS POSSESSED OF, THAT WAS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE HAS FURTHER POINTED OUT TO THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE FOREIGN TAX DIVISION AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC A DVERSE INFORMATION FROM WHICH IT CAN BE PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRO DUCED HIS OWN UN- ACCOUNTED MONEY. WHILE REFERRING TO THE IMPUGNED OR DER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. AR HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAD MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION BY WAY OF ASSUMING THE FACT T HAT M/S BLESSING INVESTMENTS LTD WAS A SHELL COMPANY AND THAT IT INV ESTED THE MONEY IN THE ITA NO. 120/CHD/2018- M/S MAHAKALI DEVELOPERS & RESORTS PVT. LTD, PATIAL A 8 ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY IT THROUGH A CHANNEL OF OTHER SHELL COMPANIES. FURTHER, A PERUSAL OF THE INFORMAT ION RECEIVED FROM THE MAURITIUS REVENUE AUTHORITIES REVEALS THAT THEY HAV E SUPPLIED INFORMATION THAT M/S BLESSING INVESTMENT LTD HAD REMITTED THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT THE SOURCE OF THE SAI D AMOUNT WAS A LOAN TAKEN FROM ANOTHER COMPANY HAAWK FREIGHT SERVICE FZ E ON THE SAME DATE. THERE WAS NOT ANY FURTHER INFORMATION RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEES UNACCOUNTED MONEY HAS BEE N INTRODUCED AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY INTO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, IN OUR VIEW, THE AFORESAID INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM MAURITIUS AUTHORITY IS NO T SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CARRIED OUT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECEI VED SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE INVESTMENT BY THE FOREIGN ENTITY INTO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BUT THAT INFORMATION, ITSELF, WAS NOT A COMPLETE OR SPE CIFIC INFORMATION TO CONCLUDE THAT THE SAID MONEY, IN FACT, WAS OWN MONE Y OF THE ASSESSEE REMITTED THROUGH THIS FOREIGN COMPANY. ANOTHER FACT ON THE FILE IS THAT THE REOPENING IN T HIS CASE HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEYOND THE FOUR YEARS . THE ANOTHER IMPORTANT FACT IS THAT SUCH REOPENING HAS BEEN DONE EVEN AFTE R 3 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE FOREIGN TAX DIVISI ON. WHY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES / ASSESSING OFFICER / DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES WERE SITTING ON THE SAID INFORMATION FOR SUCH A LONG TIME HAS NO T BEEN EXPLAINED. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 147 COMES I NTO PLAY. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PROVIDED ALL THE INFORMATION WHATEVER WAS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. H ENCE, IT IS NOT A CASE ITA NO. 120/CHD/2018- M/S MAHAKALI DEVELOPERS & RESORTS PVT. LTD, PATIAL A 9 WHERE THERE WAS ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASS ESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSE SSMENT. IF SOME INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER L ATER ON, THOUGH CREATES SOME SUSPICION, BUT IN OUR VIEW, THAT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR HOLDING THAT INVESTMENT MADE BY THE M/S BLESSINGS INVESTS LTD WA S OUT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND A NY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSE D. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.01.2019 SD/- SD/- ( . . , # $ / B.R.R. KUMAR) %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( / SANJAY GARG ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28.01.2019 .. '+ ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. # / / CIT 4. # / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , % 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7$ / GUARD FILE '+ # / BY ORDER, 8 ' / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR