Shri Mingmar, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1377/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65430 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 24-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AROOP KUMAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI TANEJA; SOMIL AGRAWALARS
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI E BENC H BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR , JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, AM ITA NO.1377/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI MINGMAR C/O M/S RRA TAXINDIA, D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I, NEW DELHI V/S . DCIT CIRCLE-31(1), NEW DELHI [PAN/GIR : AAAPM 2833 P ] (APPELLANT (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY S/SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA & SOMIL AGRAWAL,ARS REVENUE BY SHRI AROOP KUMAR. SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING 24-09-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24-09-2012 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THIS APPEAL FILED ON 17.03.2011 BY THE ASSESSEE AG AINST AN ORDER DATED 16.11.2010 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DE LHI, RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 1 THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF ` `9,70,410/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 2 THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER LD . CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT QUASHIN G THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY LD. AO AND IN NOT DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY L D. AO AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE ON ITA N O.1377 DEL./2011 2 VARIOUS LEGAL AND FACTUAL GROUNDS AND MORE SO AS TH E SAME HAS BEEN PASSED BY RECORDING INCORRECT FACTS AND FINDING AND WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 3 THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT REVERSING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN CHARGING INTE REST U/S 234A, 234B, 234C AND 234D OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 4 THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHO UT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 2. FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THA T RETURN DECLARING AN INCOME OF ` ` 31,60,286/- FILED ON 31.10.2006 BY THE ASSESSEE, AF TER BEING PROCESSED ON 12 TH JULY, 2007 U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTIN Y WITH THE SERVICE OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, ISSUED ON 19.10.2007. IN THIS CASE, AIR INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED THAT THE ASSESSEE INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF ` `9.70,410/- IN THE SHARES THROUGH ORBIS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.[ NOW INDIA BULLS SECURITIES LTD.] ON 31.12.2005. TO A QUERY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER [AO IN SHORT],S EEKING EXPLANATION FOR SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES, THE ASSESSEE STATED TH AT HE OBTAINED LOAN FACILITY FROM INDIA BULLS SECURITIES LTD. FOR AN AMOUNT OF ` ` 9,70,410/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AN APPLICATION FOR IPO OF RELIANCE PETROLEUM LTD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, THE AO PROVIDED ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY REPLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO SHOWCAUSED T HE ASSESSEE ON 5 TH DECEMBER, 2008 AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT BE NOT TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY REPLY AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF ` `9,70,410/- BY WAY OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. ITA N O.1377 DEL./2011 3 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER HAVING A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE IN TERMS OF RULE 46A OF I.T. RULES, 1962, UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- 3.4 IN THIS CASE THE SOLE ADDITION IS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF ` ` 9,70,410/- IN THE RELIANCE PETROLEUM LIMITED IPO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED AIR BA SED INFORMATION ABOUT CERTAIN INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE A PPELLANT DURING THE YEAR. WHILE THE APPELLANT COULD SATISFY THE AS SESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE OTHER INVESTMENTS REFLECTED IN THE AIR BA SED INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE APPELLANT S SUBMISSION THAT THE INVESTMENT RELATING TO RELIANCE PETROLEUM LTD. WAS THROUGH A LOAN OF ` ` 9,70,410/- GIVEN BY M/S ORBIS SECURITIES PVT. LTD. AND WHICH WAS DIRECTLY INVESTED BY M/S ORBIS SECURITIES PVT. LTD. ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACC ORDINGLY TAXED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. 3.5 IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE LD. COUNSEL REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED A LOAN FROM M/S. INDIA B ULLS FINANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD., THEN M/S. ORBIS SECURITIES PVT. LTD. WHICH HAD INVESTED DIRECTLY ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT:- 'AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED AMOUNT INVESTMENT OF RS.9,70,410/-. THIS AMOUNT IS DIRECTLY PAID BY INDIA BULLS FINANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD. ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN IPO OF RELIANCE PETROLEUM LTD. INDIA BULLS FINANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD. HAS DIRECTLY PAID THIS AMOUNT TO RELIANCE PETROLEUM LTD. UNDER IPO AS WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THIS AMOUNT IN OUR BANK ACCOUNT AND NEITHER WE HAVE PAID THIS AMOUNT TO RELIANCE PETROLEUM LTD. AS PER THE IPO FINANCING CONCEPT. 3.6 THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO FILED A COPY OF THE CERTIF ICATE RECEIVED FROM M/S. INDIA BULLS FINANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD. WHI CH READS AS UNDER:- 'DEAR INVESTOR, ITA N O.1377 DEL./2011 4 SUB: LEVERAGED APPLICATION IN RELIANCE PETROLEUM IP O: APPLICATION NO. 2666225 AT THE OUTSET, WE THANK YOU FOR HAVING DEALT WITH U S. THIS REFERS TO YOUR APPLICATION NO. 2666225 FOR REL IANCE PETROLEUM IPO FOR 16100 SHARES. THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT YOU HAVE G OT AN ALLOTMENT OF NIL SHARES IN THE SAID APPLICATION. THE PAYABLE AMOUNT ON THIS APPLICATION OF 16100 SHA RES WAS RS.9,70,410 AND WE HAD RECEIVED A CASH MARGIN OF RS.200000. THE REFORE, THE FUNDING AMOUNT STANDS AT RS.798200 AND INTEREST PAYABLE WOR KS OUT TO RS. NIL. THE VALUE OF SHARES ALLOTTED WORKS OUT TO RS. NIL. THEREFORE, WE HAVE PROCESSED YOUR REFUND AMOUNT OF RS.200000 WITHOUT DEDUCTING FOR VALUE OF SHARES ALLOTTED AND INTEREST AMOUNT. PLEASE NOT THAT THIS AMOUNT IS TOWARDS FULL AND FIN AL SETTLEMENT OF YOUR LOAN. WE THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN FOR DEALING WITH US AND LOO K FORWARD TO A LONG LASTING BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP. HAPPY INVESTING REGARDS, INDIA BULLS FINANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD.' 3.7 ON EXAMINATION OF THE CERTIFICATE IT WAS OBSERV ED THAT THE CERTIFICATE WAS UNDATED AND NEITHER THE NAME NOR THE DESIGNATIO N OF THE ALLEGED AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY WAS INDICATED IN THE C ERTIFICATE. ON 7.9.2010 THE APPELLANT INFORMED THAT THE COMPANY HA D BEEN APPROACHED FOR ISSUING A DATED CERTIFICATE WHICH HA S SO FOR NOT BEEN FILED. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL I.E. THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S. INDIA BULLS FIN ANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD. IT IS SEEN THAT WHILE THE APPELLANT IS STATING THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT WAS BY M/S. INDIA BULLS FINANCIAL CO. PV T. LTD. THE CERTIFICATE STATES THAT IT HAD BEEN PAID A CASH MAR GIN OF RS.2 LACS (BY THE APPELLANT). THUS THERE IS CONTRADICTION BET WEEN THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND THE ALLEGED LOAN CR EDITOR. MOREOVER THE APPELLANT HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THIS CASH MARGIN. THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 31.3.2006 DISCL OSES A BALANCE OF RS.257955 WITH M/S. INDIA BULLS FINANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD. THOUGH APPELLANT HIMSELF HAS SUBMITTED THE CERTIFIC ATE HE HAS NOT SOUGHT TO ADDRESS THESE CONTRADICTIONS. THUS IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO LEAD RELIABLE EVIDEN CE TO EVEN CLAIM THAT OUT OF RS.9,70,410, THE SOURCE OF RS.7,98,200 /- IS EXPLAINABLE ITA N O.1377 DEL./2011 5 IN THE HANDS OF M/S. INDIA BULLS FINANCE COMPANY PV T. LTD. AND NOT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS SOL ELY RELIED UPON THE LETTER/CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S. INDIA BULLS F INANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD. FOR EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT O F RS.9,70,410/-. AS OBSERVED THE CERTIFICATE IN THE FORM PROVIDED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE TREATED AS AUTHENTIC AND GENU INE. AS THE CERTIFICATE FILED BY THE APPELLANT LACKS CREDIBILIT Y, IT IS HELD THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.9,70,410/- IN 16100 SHAR ES OF RELIANCE PETROLEUM LTD. IPO APPEARING IN THE NAME OF THE APP ELLANT REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE APP ELLANT IS DISMISSED. 4. WITH REGARD TO THE PLEA OF INADEQUATE OPPORTUNIT Y PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FINALIZED U/S. 143(3) AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY T O THE APPELLANT. THE GRIEVANCE IF ANY, OF LACK OF ADEQUATE TIME PROVIDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO FILE NECESSARY EVIDENCE WAS ADEQUATELY A DDRESSED DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND APPELLANT HAS BEEN PERMIT TED TO FILE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. A R ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO AN APPLICATION FILE D ON 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2012 FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF RULE 2 9 OF THE ITAT RULE 1963 CONTENDED THAT THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) ADMITTED ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF RULE 46A OF I.T. RULES,1962 HE REJECTED THE SAID E VIDENCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED OF M/S INDIA BULLS FINANCE COMPA NY PVT. LTD. WAS UNDATED NOR THE NAME AND DESIGNATION OF THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATOR Y APPEARED THEREIN. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT A FRESH CERT IFICATE DATED 14 TH JUNE, 2011 FROM M/S INDIA BULLS FINANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD. HAS BEEN OBTAINED AND REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED BY WAY OF A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE ALONG WITH A COPY OF STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE SAID COMPANY , REFLECTING TOTAL INVESTMENT OF ` ` 9,70,410/- AS ALSO A BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE , REFLECTING ISSUE OF CHEQUE FOR MARGIN MONEY. THE LD. AR ADDED THAT THE ASSESSE HAD NOT MADE ANY INVESTMENT OF 9,70,410/- ON 31.12.2005;RATHER AMOUN T WAS FUNDED BY INDIA BULLS SECURITIES LTD ON 20.4.2006.THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND, DID NOT OPPOSE THE PRAYER FOR ADMISSION OF AFORESAID THREE DOCUMENTS B Y WAY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ITA N O.1377 DEL./2011 6 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO T HE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE- EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROU GH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS IS APPARENT FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS, THE AO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF ` 9,70,410/- STATED TO HAVE BEEN INVESTED IN IPO OF RELIANCE PE TROLEUM LTD. ON 31.12.2005, FOR WANT OF ANY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF SOURCE OF IN VESTMENT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UPHELD THE ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE HAVING FAILED TO FURNISH ANY RELIABLE EVIDENCE AND THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY INDIA BULLS SECURITIES LTD. BEING UNDATED AND NAME/DESI GNATION OF AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY HAVING NOT BEEN INDICATED THEREIN. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR HAS NOW MADE PRAYER FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF A FRESH CERTIFICATE DATED 14 TH JUNE, 2011 ISSUED BY M/S INDIA BULLS FINANCE COMPA NY PVT. LTD. , A COPY OF STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE SAID COMPANY, REFLE CTING TOTAL INVESTMENT OF ` ` 9,70,410/- AS ALSO A BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE , REFLECTING ISSUE OF CHEQUE FOR MARGIN MONEY OF ` 2 LACS. SINCE THE DOCUMENTS NOW SOUGHT TO BE ADMIT TED IN EVIDENCE, IN OUR OPINION, WOULD UNRAVEL THE OBSCUR ITY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE SOURCE OF THE AFORESAID INVESTMENT OF ` ` 9,70,410/- IS EXPLAINED, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE ADMITTED IS VITAL AND ESSENTIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERATION OF THE S UBJECT-MATTER OF APPEAL AND TO ARRIVE AT A FINAL AND ULTIMATE DECISION IN A FAIR A ND JUST MANNER. THE TRIBUNAL, UNDER RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES, 1963, HAS POWER TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE OR IF THERE EXISTS SUBST ANTIAL CAUSE. THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE WILL BE BETTER SERVED IF THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS AN NEXED TO THE APPLICATION FILED ON 9.2.2012 ARE ADMITTED BECAUSE THESE DOCUMENTS HA VE A NEXUS WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ALSO VERY ESSENTIAL FOR PROPER APPR ECIATION AND ADJUDICATION OF THE LIS/CONTROVERSY INVOLVED. ACCORDINGLY, PRAYER F OR ADMISSION OF AFORESAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES ,1963 IS ACCEPTED IN THE LIGHT OF GUIDELINES LAID DOWN IN THE DECISION OF HO NBLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PARI MANGALDAS GIRDHARIDAS VS. CIT,(1977) 6 CTR(GUJ)647. HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HELD, INTER ALIA, T HAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CAN BE ITA N O.1377 DEL./2011 7 ADMITTED IF THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERS THAT IN THE IN TEREST OF JUSTICE SOMETHING WHICH REMAINS OBSCURE SHOULD BE FILLED UP SO THAT IT CAN PRONOUNCE ITS ORDER IN A MORE SATISFACTORY MANNER . OSTENSIBLY, THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TERMS OF R . 29 TO ADMIT FRESH EVIDENCE ENTAILS AN ELEMENT OF DISCRETI ON WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE EXERCISED IN A JUDICIOUS MANNER. THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ARE NOT ONLY IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE EVIDE NCE COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES OWING TO LACK OF ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY BUT ALSO SITUATIONS WHERE THE FRESH EVIDENCE WOULD ENABLE THE TRIBUNAL TO PASS ORDER OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FI ND THAT THE AFORESAID EVIDENCE SEEKS TO REMOVE THE OBSCURITY IN THE FACTS. SINCE T HE FRESH EVIDENCE NOW BEING PRODUCED SEEKS TO CORRECT AND BETTER APPRECIATION OF FACTS, IN OUR VIEW, THE ADMISSION OF THE SAME IS VERY MUCH WITHIN THE REALM OF THE EXPRESSION 'FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE' IN R. 29 OF THE ITAT RULES , 1963. SINCE THE AO OR THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT HAVE ANY OCCASION TO GO THROUGH THE SE DOCUMENTS, IN ORDER TO BALANCE THE EQUITIES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ON THE ONE HAND, THE ASSESSEE BE PERMITTED TO RELY UPON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE P RODUCED BEFORE US AND AT THE SAME TIME, THE AO ALSO BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THESE DOCUMENTS. 5.1 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO T HE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IN THE LIG HT OF AFORESAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND OF COURSE AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OP PORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IS FREE TO UNDERTAKE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRES, I F FOUND NECESSARY AND THEREAFTER, MAY PASS SUCH ORDER AS HE DEEMS PROPER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, BRINGING OUT CLEARLY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT INVESTMEN T WAS MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO- OPERATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO SO THAT MATTER IS EXPEDITIOUSLY DISPO SED OF. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 IN THE APPEAL ARE D ISPOSED OF. 6. GROUND NO. 3 IN THE APPEAL RELATES TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A,234B,234C & 234D OF THE ACT.. SINCE THE LD. A R ON BEHALF OF THE ITA N O.1377 DEL./2011 8 ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY SUBMISSIONS BEFORE US ON THIS GROUND WHILE THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A,234 B,234C & 234D OF THE ACT BEING MANDATORY [COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. VS ANJUM M. H. GHASWALA AND OTHERS,252 ITR 1(SC), AFFIRMED BY HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HINDUSTAN BULK CARRIERS [2003] 259 I TR 449(SC) AND IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SANT RAM MANGAT RAM JEWELLERS [2003] 264 ITR 564(SC)], THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. HOWEVER, THE AO SHALL ALLOW CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF, IF ANY, WHILE ADJUDICAT ING THE AFORESAID ISSUE OF INVESTMENT, IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID DIRE CTIONS. 7.. NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HAVING BEEN RAISED BEFORE US IN TERMS OF RESIDUARY GROUND NO. 4 IN THE APPEAL, ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUN D IS DISMISSED. 8. .NO OTHER PLEA OR ARGUMENT WAS MADE BEFORE US. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (A.N. PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. ASSESSEE 2. DCIT CIRCLE-31(1),NEW DELHI 3. CIT CONCERNED. 4. CIT (A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI. 5. DR, ITAT, E BENCH, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, DELHI ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT