Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
16020114 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
10 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
27-11-2012
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
G
Next Hearing Date
28-08-2012
Assessment Year
2005-2006
Appeal Filed On
11-01-2012
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C.SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S.KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-160/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2005-06 MR. SANJAY AGGARWAL, VS. DCIT, 23/5. KALA BHAWAN, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, SHAKTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-07. NEW DELHI. PAN-AAFPA0065L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. V.K.BINDAL, CA & SMT. SWEETY KOTH ARI, AR RESPONDENT BY: SH. NIRANJAN KOHLI, CIT DR. APPEAL HEARD ON-28.08.2012 ORDER PRONOUNC ED ON-27.11.2012 ORDER PER I.C.SUDHIR, JM THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED FIRST APPELLATE ORDER O N THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.25 LACS WHICH WAS PAID BY THE APPELL ANT AS COMPENSATION TO JBA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. IN RESPECT OF AN AGRICU LTURE PLOT WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD OR BRING ING ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL. THUS, THE ADDITION MUST BE DELETED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT SA ID SUM WAS RECEIVED AS ADVANCE AS PER THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND WAS NOT A PART OF LIABILITY FOR WHICH NO CONFIRMATION WERE FILED. THUS, THE ADDITI ON MUST BE DELETED. I.T.A .NO.-160/DEL/2012 2 2. BESIDES ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MOVED APPLI CATION FOR ALLOWING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR THE ADJUDICATION O F THE TRIBUNAL :- THE ADDITIONS IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PAS SED U/S 153A ARE BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS BECAUSE (A) THE ADDITIONS WERE NOT BASED ON ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUN T OR OTHER MATERIAL NOT PRODUCED IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASS ESSMENT BUT WHICH COULD ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE COURS E OF SEARCH OR AN UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY DISCOVERED THEREI N (B) AS THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT ABATED BUT W ERE ALREADY COMPLETED. 3. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN TH E ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTE R AND ADJUDICATION OF WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRED CONSIDERATION OF FRESH MATERIAL OUTSIDE TH E RECORD. IN SUPPORT, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON SEVERAL DECISIONS INCLUDING :- (I) NATIONAL THERMAL POWER COMPANY LTD. VS CIT (1998) 2 29 ITR 383 (SC) (II) CIT VS BHAGWATI PRINTERS PVT. LTD. (2006) 102 TTJ 4 80(DEL.) (III) DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) VS ARUNODYA (200 6) 286 ITR 383 (DEL.) LD. DR OPPOSED THE ABOVE APPLICATION. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO SUCH ISSUES WERE RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITY BELOW. 4. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND SUBST ANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE LEGAL IN NATURE WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND ADJUDICATION OF THE SAME DOES NOT NEED I.T.A .NO.-160/DEL/2012 3 CONSIDERATION OF FRESH MATERIAL OUTSIDE THE RECORD. WE THUS ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJUDICATION OF THESE ADDITIONA L GROUNDS BY THE BENCH. 5. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE A DDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE FULLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. VS DCIT, ITA NO.-5018 TO 5022 & 5059/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2009-2010) ORDER DATED 06.07.2012 (A COPY HAS BEEN SUPPLIED). HE CONTENDED THAT ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153A IN QUESTION ARE NOT BASED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER MAT ERIAL NOT PRODUCED IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT BUT WHICH COULD BE ALLEGED T O HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND AS SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERT Y DISCOVERED THERE IN AND THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT AWAITED BU T WERE ALREADY COMPLETED. 6. LD. DR OBJECTED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR WITH THIS CONTENTION THAT THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGI STICS LTD. VS DCIT (SUPRA) ARE DIFFERENT AS IN THAT CASE, ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WA S ALREADY FRAMED WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF PRESENT ASSESSEE, NO ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS THERE PRIOR TO THE SEARCH. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- (A) 117 ITD 74 (DEL.) SHIV NATH RAI HARI NARAYAN INDIA LTD. VS DCIT (B) 114 ITD 305 (DEL.) MS. SHYAM LATA KAUSHIK VS. ACIT. 7. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON, WE FIND THAT ON THE QUESTION AS TO WHE THER ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153A ENCOMPASSES ADDITIONS, NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH WAS RAISED BEFORE THE I.T.A .NO.-160/DEL/2012 4 SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S AL L CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. VS DCIT (SUPRA) AND FOLLOWING ANSWERS HAVE BEEN GIV EN BY THE SPECIAL BENCH :- (A) IN ASSESSMENTS THAT ARE ABATED, THE AO RETAINS THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AS WELL AS JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON HIM U/S 153A F OR WHICH ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE FOR EACH OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS SEPARA TELY; (B) IN OTHER CASES, IN ADDITION TO THE INCOME THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED, THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A WILL BE MADE ON T HE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, WHICH IN THE CONTEXT OF RELEVANT PROVISIO NS MEANS :- (I) BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, OTHER DOCUMENTS, FOUND IN TH E COURSE OF SEARCH BUT NOT PRODUCED IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL A SSESSMENT; AND (II) UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY DISCOVERED IN T HE COURSE OF SEARCH. SINCE FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS ALREADY FRAMED ON THE RET URN OF INCOME IF ANY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE AND OTHERS ON 31.07.2008. WE THUS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, SE T ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE ADDIT IONAL GROUNDS IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THEM AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THEM. THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. GROUND NO-1 8. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RET URNED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SELLING OF THE PROPERTIES SITUATED AT ZINDAPUR. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED FOR RS.13,55,000/- ON 31.10.200 3. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT I.T.A .NO.-160/DEL/2012 5 INITIALLY THIS PROPERTY WAS AGREED TO BE SOLD FOR R S.27 LACS TO ONE M/S JBA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VIDE AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 16.04.2004. HOWEVER LATER ON THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PERFORM HIS PAST OF THE AGREEM ENT WITH M/S JBA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. AND AS PER THE TERMS OF SAID AGREEMENT TO SALE, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PAY A COMPENSATION OF RS.25 LACS TO THE SAID PROPOSED BUY ER. SUCH PAYMENT WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE SUBSEQUENT FY I.E IN THE AY 2006-07 BY THE APPELLANT. IT WAS SUBMITTED AND CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE THAT ULTIMATELY THIS PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR RS.56.58 LACS VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 21.09.2004. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED RS.25 LACS ALLEGEDLY PAID TO M/S J BA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. TOWARDS THE COST OF PROPERTY. IT WAS FURTHER CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN HIS OVERALL DEAL, IT HAS EARNED MORE MONEY. THE AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ABOVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS THUS QUESTIONED THE ADDITION OF RS.25 LACS MADE AND CONFIRMED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E AS A COST PAID TO M/S JBA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.. 9. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED T HAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE BUT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE MADE AND UPHELD THE ADDITION IN QUESTION WITHOUT EXAMINING THE BUYER M/ S JBA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. WHO WAS COMPENSATED BY MAKING PAYMENT OF RS.25 LACS TO THEM BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT TO SALE BETWEEN T HE ASSESSEE AND M/S JBA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ON FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO SALE THE PROPERTY TO THEM. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW INSTEAD HAVE PREFERRED TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS.25 LACS ON THE I.T.A .NO.-160/DEL/2012 6 BASIS OF SURMISES THAT RS.25 LACS MIGHT HAVE NOT BE EN PAID BEING AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE. 10. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE ISSUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF RS.25 LACS TO M/S JBA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. THE AGREEMENT TO SALE ENTERPRISE WITH M/S JBA ENTER PRISES PVT. LTD. WAS ALSO NOT REGISTERED AND CLAUSE 2 OF THE SAID AGREEMENT REGAR DING PAYMENT OF RS.25 LACS BY THE ASSESSEE TO THEM IN CASE OF FAILURE OF THE ASSE SSEE TO SALE THE PROPERTY TO THEM IS ALSO ABSURD AND AGAINST THE GENERAL PRACTICE OF PAY MENTS OF DOUBLE OF THE AMOUNT PAID AS AN ADVANCE AGAINST THE DEALING TO THE BUYER IN CASE OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE SELLER TO SALE THE PROPERTY TO THE AGREED BUYER . 11. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD DENIED THE CLAIMED COST OF RS.25 LACS ALLEGEDLY PAID TO M/S JB A ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ON THE BREACH OF THE AGREEMENT TO SALE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION TO THEM BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- (I) AS PER CLAUSE 1 OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WITH M/S JBA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. THE SALE WAS TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN ARE M ONTH I.E BY 15.05.2004. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE SOLD IT SUBSEQUENTLY ON 21.09.2004. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE GAP OF MORE THAN 4 MONTHS IS N OT EXPLAINED. (II) IF THE ASSESSEE WERE TO PAY ANY REAL COMPENSATION T O THE SAID FIRST BUYER NAMELY JBA ENTERPRISES P. LTD. THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE PAID IT IMMEDIATELY AN TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT AND NOT IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR AS CLAIMED. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH PAYMENT MADE EVEN IN NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR. I.T.A .NO.-160/DEL/2012 7 (III) THE TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO COMPENSATION OF RS. 2 5 LACS ON A DEAL OF PROPERTY FOR SALE FOR RS. 27 LACS SOUNDS TOTALLY IL LOGICAL AND IS NOT AS PER NORMAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH TRANSACTION S. GENERALLY AS PER BUSINESS PRACTICE DOUBLE OF THE AMOUNT PAID AS INITIAL ADVANCE IS KEPT AS COMPENSATION ON BACK-TRACKING BY ANY PARTY. IN THIS CASE CASH ADVANCE OF RS. 1 LACS WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY M/S JBA ENTERPRISES. (IV) THE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND THE JBA ENTERP RISES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE GENUINE AND BONAFIDE. HENCE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE SAME IS REJECTED AS APART FROM ASSESSEE S WERE CLAIM ON THIS THERE IS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE WHICH COULD JUST IFY THE SAID CLAIM. THE SO CALLED AGREEMENT TO SELL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS NOT EVEN PROPERTY SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE SAID COMPANY. GEN ERALLY SUCH DOCUMENTS BEAR THE SEAL & STAMP OF THE COMPANY WHIC H IS ALSO MISSING IN THIS CASE. (V) AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, AS ASSESSE E CAN CLAIM A DEDUCTION TOWARDS TO COST OF ACQUISITION OR COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF A CAPITAL ASSET. THE SO CALLED PAYMENT OF RS.25 ,00,000/- IS NEITHER A COST OF ACQUISITION NOR A COST OF IMPROVEMENT. I F AT ALL IT IS PAID, IT CAN NOT BE DEDUCTED FROM THE COST OF CONSIDERATION WHILE COMPUTING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 12. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT PRE-PONDERANCE OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES HAS GOT VERY IMPORTANT ROLE TO PLAY IN THE MATTERS OF INCOME TAX ACT AND THAT IS THE REASON BEHIND THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE COURTS TO HAVE BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD TIME AND AGAIN THAT PROVISIONS OF EVIDENCE ACT ARE NOT STRIC TLY APPLICABLE IN THE CASES UNDER INCOME TAX ACT. EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO I.T.A .NO.-160/DEL/2012 8 CONVINCINGLY MEET OUT THE ABOVE OBJECTIONS RAISED B Y THE AO ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIMED COST OF RS.25 LACS. EVEN, WE ARE UNABL E TO CONVINCE OURSELVES THAT IN AN AGREEMENT TO SALE THE PROPERTY FOR RS.27 LACS, T HE PROPOSED SELLER IN DEFAULT WILL HAVE TO PAY RS. 25 LACS AS COMPENSATION TO THE PROP OSED BUYER IN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO ON THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE OF RS. 1 LAC ONLY. WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT GENERALLY AS PER BUSINESS PRACTICE DOUBLE OF THE ADVANCE AMOUNT (PAID AS INITIAL AMOUNT TO CO NFIRM THE DEAL) IS PAID BY THE SELLER IN DEFAULT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AN ADVANCE OF RS. 1 LAC WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID IN CASH BY M/S JBA ENTERPRISES. IN SUCH A CASE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE MAKES AN UNUSUAL CLAIM WHICH IS AGAINST HUMAN PROBA BILITY, ONUS LIES HEAVILY ON THE CLAIMANT ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH GENUINENESS OF S UCH CLAIM TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS THOROUGHLY FAILED TO PROVE IN THE PRESENT CASE . OBVIOUSLY M/S JBA ENTERPRISES IS AN INTERESTED PARTY TO SUCH AN AGREEMENT. HENCE EVEN THEIR CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT OF PAYMENT OF RS.25 LACS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE ALLEGED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THIS REGARD. THE SAME IS UPHELD. GROUND NO. 1 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. GROUND NO-2 13. THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.14 LACS ON ACCOUN T OF UNEXPLAINED LIABILITIES. HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LIABILITIES OF RS.39 LACS IN HIS BALANCE SHEET FILED WITH THE RETURN. HE WAS ASKED TO FILE CONFIRMATION ETC. IN SUPPORT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 21.12.2010 CLAIMED THAT THE I.T.A .NO.-160/DEL/2012 9 AMOUNT REPRESENTED RS. 25 LACS PAYABLE TO M/S JBA E NTERPRISES PVT. LTD. AND BALANCE WAS PAYABLE TO RITE PACK PVT. LTD. & KIWI F OODS INDIA PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RETURNED BACK THE SAME IN THE NEXT FY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO CONFI RMATION AVAILABLE. THE AO NOTED THAT THESE CONCERNS BELONG TO THE SAME GROUP AND ASSESSEE HOLD SHARES ALSO IN KIWI FOODS PVT. LTD. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, TH E AO DOUBTED THE CLAIMED LIABILITY AND PAYMENT IN ABSENCE OF THE CONFIRMATIO NS. THE AO NOTED FURTHER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECONCILED HIS BALANCE-SHEET AS ON 31.03.2005. THE SAID LIABILITIES WERE REPRESENTED BY SIMILAR AMOUNT SOMEWHERE IN ASS ESSMENT ONLY THEN A BALANCE SHEET RECONCILES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH LIABILITIES, THE AO TREATED THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED CREDITS IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION. SINCE ADDITION OF R S.25 LACS WAS ALREADY MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COST CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO M/S JB A ENTERPRISES, THE AO MADE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT AT RS.14 LACS I.E THE BALA NCE AMOUNTS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,000/-. IN GROUN D NO-2, UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A ) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1 LAC. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THA T THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAC IGNORING THE FA CT THAT THE SAID SUM WAS RECEIVED AS ADVANCE AS PER THE AGREEMENT TO SALE AND WAS NOT A PART OF LIABILITY FOR WHICH NO CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED. I.T.A .NO.-160/DEL/2012 10 14. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW ON THE ISSUE, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE I N PARA NO-(III) AT PAGE NO-7 & 8 OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY DELETED RS. 1 LAC OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 14 LACS MADE B Y THE AO WITH THIS OBSERVATION THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AS ADVANCE AS PER THE AGREEMENT TO SALE. HENCE, IT DESERVES TO BE CORRECTED. SINCE THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 ,50,000/- OUT OF THE REMAINING ADDITION OF RS. 13 LACS WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1, 50,000/- OUT OF THE CLAIMED LIABILITY. WE THUS FIND THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO-2. THE GROUN D IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.11.2012. SD/- SD/- (T.S.KAPOOR) (I.C.SUDHIR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27/11/2012 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI
