The Income-tax Officer, Amritsar. V. Sh Subhash Khanna, Amritsar.

ITA 125/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63460 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LAXMAN SINGH
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.125(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 PAN :ARSPK1927B THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH. SUBHASH KHANNA, WARD 5(4), AMRITSAR. 150, SHASTRI NAGAR, AMRITSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. LAXMAN SINGH CIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY:SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, CA DATE OF HEARING:23/08/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:05/09/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), AMRITSAR, DATED 28.12.2010 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO VIDE ORDER DATED 7.12 .2007 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT SH. BALWINDER SI NGH IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 27.07.2006 HAS SUO MOTO ADMIT TED OF HAVING PAID THE AFORESAID AMOUNT AFTER WITHDRAWING THE SAME FROM STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, THE MALL, AMRITSAR. ITA NO.125(ASR)/2011 2 II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR ERRED IN DELETING THE AFORESAID AD DITION BY ALSO OBSERVING THAT THE PAYMENT WAS NOT PAID BY ACC OUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND NO CASH RECEIPT WAS OBTAINED WHICH ARE T HE TWO VALID AND LEGAL PROOF OF HAVING PAID THE COMMISSION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SELF-ADMISSION OF F ACT IN THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE SELLER IS EQUALLY VALID AND ACCEPTABLE IN LAW AND SELF-ADMISSION CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE. III) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR ERRED IN DELETING THE AFORESAID A DDITION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SELLER OF THE LAND I.E. SH. BALWINDER SINGH WAS ALSO CROSS-EXAMINED BY THE COUN SEL OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND AF TER THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.12,00,000/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. IV) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,50,000/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE NARRATED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. V) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.60,000/- MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR LOW HOUS EHOLD WITHDRAWALS CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE LAVISH STYLE AS ADMITTED BY HIM IN ANSWER TO QU ESTION NO.5 OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 8.8.2006 HAD MADE THE ADDITION. VI) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE AO BE R ESTORED. VII) APPELLANT CARVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ADD ANY OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL 2. THE BRIEF FACTS AS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHO RITY ARE THAT THE AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON T HE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SH. BALWINDER SINGH SELLER OF LAND MEASURING 13,740 SQ.YARDS LOCATED AT ITA NO.125(ASR)/2011 3 G.T.ROAD, AMRITSAR, FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS . 6 CRORE. AS PER STATEMENT OF SH.BALWINDER SINGH, HE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID COMMISSION @ 2% ON SALE OF ABOVE SAID LAND TO SH. SUBHASH KHAN NA, THE ASSESSEE AND SH. SANJAY KHNNA. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT B Y CONCLUDING THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 24 LAC WAS PAID AS COMMISSION T O SH. SUBHASH KHANNA AND HIS SON, SH. SANJAY KHANNA AND HE MADE THE ADDI TION OF RS. 12 LACS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THIS AMOUNT AND MADE THE ADDITION ACCORDINGLY. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DAT ED 28.12.2010 PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY DELETING THE ADDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE PRESENT GROUNDS OF APPEALS. NOW THE REVENUE IS AGGR IEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND FILED THE PRESENT APPEA L BEFORE THIS BENCH. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. (CIT) DR STATED THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS WRONGLY STATED THAT THE ADD ITION OF RS. 12 LACS MADE BY THE AO VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 7.12.2007 WITHOUT AP PRECIATING THE FACT THAT SH. BALWINDER SINGH IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 27 .07.2006 HAS SUO MOTO ADMITTED OF HAVING PAID THE AFORESAID AMOUNT AFTER WITHDRAWING THE SAME FROM STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, THE MALL, AMRITSAR. H E FURTHER STATED THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALSO WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF ITA NO.125(ASR)/2011 4 RS.2,50,000/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND PA ST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS ALSO DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.60,000/- MA DE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS WITHOUT CONSIDERING TH E LAVISH LIFE STYLE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE REQUESTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASS ED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BE CANCELLED AND THE APPEAL FIL ED BY THE REVENUE MAY BE ACCEPTED. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 104, IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE LD. FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION ESPECIALLY TO THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2010 PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE CASE OF SH. SANJAY KHANN A SON OF THE ASSESSEE, IN WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS . 6 LACS ALLEGED TO HAVE RECEIVED AS A COMMISSION BY HIM ALONGWITH THE ASSES SEE @ 50% TOTALING RS.12 LACS. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PARA 6 (PAGES 11 TO 15) OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY DATED 21.12.2010 IN THE CASE OF SH. SANJAY KHANNA AND REVENUE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST ORDER DATED 21.12.2010 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT MEAN S THAT THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY DATED 21.12.2010. HE STATED THAT THE ADDITION IN THE CASE OF SH. SANJAY KHANNA SON OF SH. SUBHASH ITA NO.125(ASR)/2011 5 KHANNA, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MADE ON SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE SAME DESE RVES TO BE DELETED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUT HORIES ALONGWITH THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E AS WELL AS THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. DR. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT SH. SANJAY KHANNA SON OF SH. SUBHASH KHANNA HAS FILED APPEAL AGAINST SIMILAR ADDITION AS HAS BEEN MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIDE ORDER DATED 21.12.2010 ONLY ONE WEEK EARLIER FROM T HE ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.1 2.2010, DELETED THE SIMILAR ADDITION MADE IN THE CASE OF SH. SANJAY KHA NNA SON OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE REVENUE HA S NOT FILE ANY APPEAL AGAINST ORDER DATED 21.12.2010 PASSED BY THE LD. CI T(A). FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT DISCUSSIONS OF THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2010 PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN PARA 6 (PAG ES 11 TO 15) IN THE CASE OF SH. SANJAY KHANNA SON OF THE ASSESSEE SH. SUBHASH K HANNA ARE PRODUCED AS UNDER: 6. AS REGARD GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE STATEMENT OF SH. BALWIND ER SINGH WAS RECORDED IN REPLY TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF DEAL SH. BALWINDER SINGH STATED THAT SH. SUBHASH KHANNA AND SANJAY KHANNA C AME TO HIM WITH THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER SH. JUGAL KISHORE, PARTNER OF M/S. SATNAM OVERSEAS AND AFTER NEGOTIATIONS THE AGREEMENT TO SE LL WAS ENTERED INTO ITA NO.125(ASR)/2011 6 BETWEEN JUGAL KISHORE AND SH. BALWINDER SINGH AND F AMILY MEMBERS AND THE SALE PRICE WAS NEGOTIATED AT RS. 6 CRORES. BANK DRAFTS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,10,00,000/- RECEIVED WAS HANDED O VER TO US BY SUBHASH KHANNA AND SANJAY KHANNA AS PER HIS REPLY T O Q. NO.8 OF THE STATEMENT. ON DEMAND FROM SH. SUBHASH KHANNA AND SH . SANJAY KHANNA A SUM OF RS. 8 LACS WAS PAID AFTER WITHDRAWI NG PERSONALLY FROM THE BANK AND SUBSEQUENTLY DRAFTS WORTH RS.44 L ACS WERE RECEIVED WITHIN NEXT 15 DAYS AND AGAIN RS. 4 LACS WERE GIVEN TO HIM BY INSTALLMENTS RANGING FROM RS.50,000/- TO RS.1 LACS AFTER WITHDRAWING FROM DIFFERENT BANKS. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE AOS LETTER DATED 29.8.200 7 IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO HOW HE HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 6 LA CS BEING 50& COMMISSION RECEIVABLE ON THE BASIS OF THE ONLY STAT EMENT OF SH. BALWINDER SINGH AND EXCEPT THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCE WHATSOEVER MAY BE EVER SUPPLIED OR CONFRONTED OR WA S AVAILABLE WITH THE MOREOVER DURING CROSS EXAMINATION OF SH. BALWIN DER SINGH, IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES FATHER SH. SUBHASH KHANNA, IT WA S ACCEPTED THAT SUBHASH KHANNA WAS THE ONLY BROKER IN THIS DEAL, TH E AO CHANGED HIS STAND AND MADE THE ADDITION FOR WHICH HE DID NOT ME NTION ANYTHING IN HIS ABOVE LETTER OR EARLIER. MOREOVER, AO WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD OR CON FRONTING OR SUPPLY THE MATERIAL AS STATED IN THE ORDER, SHIFTED HIS STAND FROM FACTS ON RECORD THAT THE APPELLANT NOT ONLY LODGED THE CO MPLAINT WITH POLICE STATION BUT HAS REPRESENTED THE PURCHASER IN THE HI GH COURT AND FROM SOME NEWS APPEARED IN THE NEWS PAPER THAT HE IS A BIG DEALER AND MUST HAVE GOT BROKERAGE FROM SH. JUGL KISHORE AT RS . 6 LACS IE. 50% OF THE COMMISSION RECEIVABLE FOR CONTESTING HIS CAS E IN ADVANCE. THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE LETT ER DATED 17.9.2007 FILED IN WHICH IT IS STATED THAT THE SELL ER IS WRONG IN SAYING FIRST THAT THE DEAL WAS FOR RS. 6 CRORE AND NOT FOR RS.5.89 CRORE AS STATED IN THE AGREEMENT. FURTHER, THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY COGNIZANCE TO TH E ASSESSEES LETTER DATED 2.11.2007 IN WHICH A CERTIFIED COPY OF SUBMISSION FILED BY SH. BALWINDER SINGH IN THE COURT OF SH. T.S. BINDRA WAS ENCLOSED. A COMPLAINT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF T HE PURCHASER. A CASE WAS REGISTERED UNDER FIR NO.103/2006 DATED 15. 5.2006. THE ITA NO.125(ASR)/2011 7 SELLER APPLIED FOR THE DISCHARGE OF THE ACCUSED ON 23.2.2007 IN THE COURT OF SH. T.S. BINDRA, JMIC, ASR. IN WHICH THE S ELLER ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS REGARDING THE AGREEMENT TO SELL THE PR OPERTY VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 9.11.2004 SUBMITTED IN PARA 3 AS U NDER: THAT SUBASH KHANNA SON OF SARDARI LAL WAS BROKER IN THE TRANSACTION FOR SALE OF THE PROPERTY MEASURING 1374 4 SQ.YDS SITUATED ON G.T.ROAD, AMRITSAR. FURTHER STATED AS UNDER: THAT SH. SANJAY KHANNA IS ABSOLUTELY NOT A PARTY TO THE TRANSACTION, AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF THE LAND MEASURI NG 13744 SQ.YDS. SANJAY KHANNAS FATHER SUBASH KHANNA IS A BROKER WH O HAS TO GET HIS BROKERAGE PERCENTAGE IF THE TRANSACTION IS COMPLETE D. AS REGARDS DETAIL OF PAYMENTS THE SELLER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COURT IN PARA 8 AS UNDER: THAT SH. SUBHASH KHANNA TOOK HIS TOTAL BROKERAGE OF RS.12,00,000/- FROM THE PARTIES I.E. RS.4,00,000/- WAS PAID IN CASH TO HIM WHERE AS A CHEQUE WAS GOT ENCASHED BY HARCHARAN SINGH ACCUSED. HE MADE THE PAYMENT OF RS.8,00,000/- TO SH. SUBHASH KHANNA AND THE COMPLAINT HAS MADE AGAINST HIM IN THE INCOME TAX DE PARTMENT. DURING THE COURSE OF CROSS EXAMINATION IN THE CASE OF SH. SUBHASH KHANNA WHEN SH. BALWINDER SINGH, THE SELLER WAS ASKED ABOUT THE CASE AND REPLY FILED IN THE COURT HE ADMI TTED IT TO BE CORRECT. WHEN HE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THAT YOUR STATEMENT, R EGARDING THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DEAL, WHERE THE AGREEMENT TO SELL EXECUTE D, WHO WAS THE BROKER IN THIS DEAL WHO HANDED OVER THE DRAFTS TO H IM AND OTHER SELLERS, PLACE OF PAYMENT AND EVEN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF BROKE RAGE PAID AND TO WHOM PAID IS DIFFERENT BEFORE THE TWO AUTHORITIES A ND WHICH OF THEM IS CORRECT. HE ADMITTED THAT ONLY SH. SUBHASH KHANNA A S THE BROKER IN THIS DEAL. NOW FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE STATEMENT ON THE SELLER WAS RECORDED ON 27.7.2006 B Y THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES AND THE CASE IN THE COURT FOR DISCHARGE WAS FILED VIDE LETTER DATED 23.2.2007 AS PER PHOTO COY OF THE CERTIFIED C OPY AVAILABLE ON ITA NO.125(ASR)/2011 8 RECORD. THEY WERE GRANTED BAIL PRIOR TO THE DATE WH EN THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPTT. ON 27.6.2006 . WHATEVER HE HAS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT WAS SUBMITTED WITH HIS S IGNATURE AND WITH AN AFFIDAVIT ON OATH AND MUCH AFTER RECORDING OF TH E STATEMENT BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. HIS ADMISSION IN CROSS EXAMI NATION AS WELL THAT SANJAY KHANNA WAS NOT THE BROKER IN THIS DEAL GOES BEYOND DOUBT TO PROVE THAT WHATEVER HE HAS STATED BEFORE THE IN COME TAX DEPARTMENT WAS WRONG AND FABRICATED STORY. SO, THE SELLER HAS INTENTIONALLY STATED OR TWISTED THE FACTS AS PER HI S SUITABILITY OR CONVENIENCE, WITHOUT ANY COGENT MATERIAL IN HIS SUP PORT. AS REGARDS PAYMENT, HE COULD NOT FILE ANY PROPER LEGAL ACCEPTA BLE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE BROKER FOR HAVING RECEIVED THE PART PAYMENT NOR ISSUED ANY PAYEES A/C CHEQUE OR EVEN THE BEARER CHEQUE WAS NO T WITHDRAWN BY THE BROKER. WHEN HE ADMITTED IN THE CROSS EXAMINATI ON THAT SUBHASH KHANNA WAS THE BROKEN THEN THERE WAS NO REASON TO M AKE PAYMENT TO SANJAY KHANNA ALSO. THE A.O. CAN NOT ACCEPT OR RELY ON THE STATEMENT OF THE SELLER BEFORE THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, IN PART. HENCE, HIS STATEMENT HAS NO VALUE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THE A .O. HAS ERRED IN RELYING UPON THE SAME. FURTHER, A.O. HAS ADMITTED T HAT SH. JUGAL KISHORE FILED A LETTER STATING THAT HE DID NOT PAY ANY THING EITHER TO SUBASH KHANNA OR SANJAY KHANNA. SANJAY KHANNA, AS A UTHORIZED BY SH. JUGAL KISHORE, ONLY FILED THE COMPLAINT. THE AP PELLANT HAS ALREADY STATED THAT HE IS SHOWING INCOME ON CASH BASIS AND NOTHING HAS BEEN PAID BY SH. JUGAL KISHORE AS STATED BY HIM ALSO. SI NCE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE ADDITION OF RS.6 LACS, WHICH IS MA DE MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE HENCE DELETED. 6.1. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID ORDER, IN WHICH THE LD. CIT(A), HAS DELETED THE SIMILAR ADDITION IN THE CASE OF SH. SAN JAY KHANNA SON OF THE ASSESSEE, SH. SUBHASH KHANNA, AS WELL AS VARIOUS DO CUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK, I N WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED COPY OF THE SUITS FILED IN THE COURT OF SU B-JUDGE, THE PART OF THE LAND SOLD BY THE SELLER DATED 26.04.2006 AND VARIOU S OTHER JUDGMENTS TO ITA NO.125(ASR)/2011 9 SUPPORT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEES SOURCE OF INCOME WAS COMMISSION FROM SALE AND PURCH ASE OF PROPERTIES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE ASSESSE E ACTED AS A COMMISSION AGENT IN THE DEAL OF LAND MEASURING 13666 SQ. YARD S SOLD BY SH. BALWINDER SINGH AND HIS FAMILY TO M/S. STANAM OVERSEAS EXPOR TS THROUGH SH. JUGAL KISHORE ARORA, PARTNER. AN AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED0 9.11.2004 WAS ENTERED FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.5,89,00,000/- IN WH ICH THE ASSESSEE WAS A DALAL WHO IS TO GET THE COMMISSION @ 2% FROM BOTH P ARTIES ON COMPLETION OF THE DEAL. SH. BALWINDER SINGH, WHO HAS SOLD THE LAND IN DISPUTE HAS MADE A STATEMENT AND STATED THAT COMMISSION AT RS. 12 LA CS WAS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON SH. SANJAY KHANNA. THE AO ISSU ED NOTICE U/S 147 OF THE ACT, ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SH. BALWINDER SINGH AND FILED HIS REPLY BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING CASH SY STEM AND COMMISSION IS SHOWN ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL RECEIVED DURING THE YE AR. THE COMMISSION RECEIVABLE ON THE BASIS OF AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 09.11.2004 DID NOT SHOWN AS THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED SO FAR IN THE ABS ENCE OF FINALITY OF THE DEAL EVEN TILL DATE. FOR MATERIALIZING THE AGREEMENT, TH E PARTIES HAVE FILED VARIOUS CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST EACH AND EVE RY WHICH IS AN EVIDENCE BEFORE US IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE A SSESSEE. BUT WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE ADDITION OF RS. 12 LACS WHI CH ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ITA NO.125(ASR)/2011 10 RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. BUT AS PER ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A) DATED 21.12.2010 REPRODUCED ABOVE, ADJUDICATING SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SH. SANJAY KHANNA SON OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERE D OPINION THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS APPRECIATED THE STATE MENT OF SH. BALWINDER SINGH ALONGWITH OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON THE I SSUE IN DISPUTE AND HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT SH. JUGAL KISHORE ARORA, PARTNER OF M/S. SATNAM OVERSEAS EXPORTS, WHO PURCHASED THE LAND FROM SH. BALWINDER SINGH AND HIS FAMILY MEASURING 13666 SQ. YARDS DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO SH. SUBHASH KHANNA OR SH. SANJAY KHANNA SON OF THE ASSE SSEE AS AUTHORIZED BY SH. JUGAL KISHORE ARORA. ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEM ENT OF SH. JUGAL KISHORE ARORA, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTL Y DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY HAS APPRECIATED THE STATEMENT OF SH. BALWINDER SINGH DATED 27.07.2006 A ND DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THAT NO INTERFE RENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE WELL REASONED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY ON THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.12 LACS MADE BY THE AO AND DELETE D BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE MENTI ONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THEREFORE, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. (I) TO (III) ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.125(ASR)/2011 11 6.2. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.(IV) REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.2,50,000/- ON ESTIMATE BASIS AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SHOWN INCOME OF RS.42,000/-, THE LD. FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING INCOME ON CASH BA SIS AND THE AO HAS NOT MENTIONED ANY REASON FOR MAKING THE ADDITION IN DIS PUTE ON ESTIMATION BASIS. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DELETED THE A DDITION IN DISPUTE FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE AND COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFOR E, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DISMISS GR OUND NO.(IV) RAISED BY THE REVENUE.S 6.3. AS REGARDS DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.60,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL AS STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AND RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY CAR AND IS A OLD MAN. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE AO HAS NOT PLACED ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SHO W THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HIGH AND HAS WRONGLY ESTIMATED HOUSEHO LD EXPENSES ON A VERY HIGHER SIDE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY RESTRICTED THESE EXPENSES TO RS.10,000/- P.M. AND HAS GIVEN PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.125(ASR)/2011 12 6.4. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, W E ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS IN DISPUTE BY PASSING A WELL REASONED ORDER ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED O RDER PASSED BY LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 7. GROUND NOS. (VI) AND (VII) ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 5TH SEPT., 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. SUBHASH KHANNA, ASR. 2. THE ITO WARD 5(4), ASR 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.