Sh. Dharam Pal Garg, Uchana V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 178/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1551 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 175/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 NEW SAGAR ENTERPRISES, VS THE DCIT, SCF 168, GRAIN MARKET, CENTRAL CIRCLE I, SECTOR 26, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAHFN2561K & ITA NO. 178/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI DHARAM PAL GARG, VS THE DCIT, C/O RAQTI RAM PREM SUKH, CENTRAL CIRCLE I, ANAJ MANDI, CHANDIGARH. UCHANA. PAN: AKYPP9605J & ITA NO. 177/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI PRADEEP GOYAL, VS THE DCIT, SCF 153, CENTRAL CIRCLE I, SECTOR 26, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AEAPG7356M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 27.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.09.2015 2 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM ALL THE APPEALS BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-III GU RGAON DATED 31.12.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE APPEALS ARE DECIDED AS UNDER : ITA175/CHD/2015 ( NEW SAGAR ENTERPRISES,CHANDIGARH) 3. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 32,25,772/-. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTE D ON PAVITRA GROUP OF CASES ON 16.02.2012 BY INVESTIGATI ON WING, CHANDIGARH. THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS ONE OF THE CONCERN COVERED UNDER THE SEARCH. IN RESPONSE TO T HE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A, ASSESSEE FIRM FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 64,260/- UN DER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. TH E ASSESSEE FILED NECESSARY DETAILS AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT PAGES NO. 1 TO 8 O F ANNEXURE A-2 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI HARS H GOYAL, SHRI KUNAL GOYAL & FAMILY MEMBERS, HOUSE NO. 54 SECTOR 28A, CHANDIGARH ARE HAND WRITTEN NOTE PAD. IN THIS NOTEPAD, PROFIT FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 TO THE TU NE OF RS. 32,25,772/- HAS BEEN WORKED OUT. OUT OF THIS PR OFIT, 3 50% EACH HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO SHRI GOYAL AND SHRI DHARAM PAL GARG, APPEARS TO BE PARTNERS OF THE ASSE SSEE FIRM. THE SCANNED COPIES OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS HA VE BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM PAGES 3 TO 16 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE CONFRONTED TO SHRI PRADEEP GOYAL DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON 16.02.2012 UNDER SECTION 132(4) AND THE RELEVANT STATEMENT IS REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SEEKING CLARIFIC ATION ON THE ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THE NOTEPAD. HE HAS EX PLAINED THAT THIS ACCOUNT DOES NOT BELONG TO THE FIRM, HOWE VER HE WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE ENTRIES CONTAINED THERE ON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHY THIS PROFIT OF RS. 32,25,772/- SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNACCOUNTED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL I. E. 2010-11 AND THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE ADDED BACK TO TH E TAXABLE INCOME. 4. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT THESE WERE PROJECTED ESTIMATE SUBMITTED TO THE STAT E BANK OF PATIALA, KALKA ROAD, MANI MAJRA FOR SANCTION OF LOAN. THE LETTER ALONGWITH APPLICATION IS ENCLOSED FOR FU RTHER INFORMATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR THE INFORMATION FROM THE BANK AND THE REPLY OF THE BANK IS DATED 08.11.2013 IN WHICH IT WAS STATED THAT SHRI DHARAMPAL GARG HAD APPROACHED THE BANK FOR LOAN OF RS. 50 LACS FOR STARTING A NEW BUSINESS ALONGWITH MR. G OYAL. HE HAS SUBMITTED THE PAPERS WHICH WERE NOT IN PROPE R 4 FORMAT AND WERE RETURNED BACK TO THE PARTY. THE BA NK HAS NOT SANCTIONED ANY LOAN TO THE PARTY PRESUMABLY DUE TO NON SUBMISSION OF FURTHER DOCUMENTS I.E. BALANCE SHEET. THE PAPERS SUBMITTED BY MR. DHARAM PAL GARG WERE SUPPLIED BY THE BANK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE WERE ONLY PROVISIONAL ESTIMATES FOR GETTING LOAN FROM THE BAN K. THE SAME WERE NOT EXPLAINED IN THE SEARCH. THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE CONSIDERED TO BE PARALLEL ACCOUNTS O F THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATE WAS FOUND TO BE MERE AFTER TH OUGH AND ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS. 32,25,772/- WAS MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PROFITS. 6. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSE SSEE MAINLY REITERATED THE FACTS STATED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE CAME INTO EXISTENC E ON 16.04.2009 AS PER PARTNERSHIP DEED DRAWN BETWEEN SH RI PRADEEP GOYAL AND SHRI DHARAM PAL GARG. SINCE FUND S WERE REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THEREFOR E, LOAN WAS APPLIED TO THE BANK WITH PROJECTED SALES AND PR OFIT ETC. BANK HAS RETURNED THE PAPERS TO THE ASSESSEE ON 20.04.2009 DIRECTING TO SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS IN PRO PER FORMAT. NO SALE OR PURCHASE WAS FOUND OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SINCE PROJECTED PAPERS WERE PREPARED BY SHRI DHARAM PAL GARG, THEREFORE, SHRI PRADEEP GOYAL IN H IS 5 STATEMENT SUBMITTED THAT THE DOCUMENTS DID NOT BELO NG TO HIS CONCERN AND HE CANNOT EXPLAIN THE SAME. 7. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN PARA 6 TO 7 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT TRANSPIRES THAT A HAND WRITTEN N OTE PAD WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI HARSH GOYAL IN WHI CH AS PER PAGES 1 TO 8 (A-2), THE PROFIT FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 (CLEARLY INDICATED ON TOP OF THE PAGE) WAS WORKED OUT TO RS.32,25 ,772/- THIS PROFIT WAS TO BE EQUALLY SHARED BY THE PARTNER S OF THE FIRM SHRI HARSH GOYAL AND SHRI DHARAMPAL GARG. SCANNED C OPIES OF THE SEIZED PAGES HAVE BEEN MADE PART OF THE ORDER. AT THE TIME OF RECORDING OF THE STATEMENT U/S 132(4) ON 16.2.20 12, SHRI HARSH GOYAL DISOWNED THE DOCUMENTS AND ON FURTHER Q UERY ADMITTED THAT HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE ENTRIES CONTAI NED THEREIN. LATER ON DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE ENTRIES WERE PROVISIONAL ESTIMAT ES PREPARED FOR PURPOSE OF OBTAINING A BANK LOAN. HOWEVER AO OB SERVED THAT THE SEIZED PAGES WERE PARALLEL BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS OF THE ASSESSEE AS EVIDENT FROM THE NATURE OF THE MULTIPLE ENTRIES APART FROM THE FIGURES DEPICTING SPECIFIC AMOUNTS A ND WENT AHEAD TO REJECT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF RS.32,25, 772/- AS UNDECLARED PROFITS. IN APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THAT THE FIGURES WERE MERE PROJECTIONS FOR 'FINING A BANK LOAN PREPAR ED BY SHRI DHARAMPAL. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE BANK REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR LOAN AS THE SAME WAS NO T IN PRESCRIBED PROFORMA. THE ASSESSEE STRESSED THAT SUCH REJECTION WAS CONFIRMED AS THE AO HAD MADE ENQUIRES WITH THE SBOP BANK. IT WAS EXPLAINED FURTHER THAT SHRI DHA RAM PAL WHO WAS ILLITERATE HAD MADE THE APPLICATION IN HIN DI AND 6 THE MULTIPLE ENTRIES WERE MADE IN SUCH A WAY SO AS T O IMPRESS UPON THE BANK. A COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DE ED (RATHER ILLEGIBLE) WAS FILED TO SHOW THE INCORPORATI ON OF THE FIRM WAS ONLY ON 13.4.2009; ALSO STATING THAT NO LOAN WAS AVAILED FROM THE BANK SUBSEQUENTLY. ON A PERUSAL OF THE SCANNED PAGES OF THE SEIZED NOTE PAD, IT I S CLEARLY EVIDENT THAT THE VARIOUS ENTRIES WERE WRITTEN PRECISELY AND IS A RUNNING ACCOUNT. THE CAPITAL INTRODUCTIONS BY BOTH THE PARTNERS HAVE ALSO BEEN CLE ARLY MENTIONED. SO BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN THE PAG ES BE SAID TO BE ANY SORT OF MATERIAL FOR APPLICATION FOR LO AN. THE BANK HAS NO DOUBT STATED THAT NO LOAN WAS SANCTIONE D TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THAT DOES NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE. WHAT IS GERMANE TO THE ISSUE IS THAT VITAL AND HANDWRITTEN DOCUMENTS IN A NOTE-PAD WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM WHO WAS UNABLE TO F URNISH ANY EXPLANATION WHEN CONFRONTED U/S 132(4). THE NARR ATIONS IN THE PAGES CLEARLY REVEAL THAT THE PROFIT WHICH HAS BEEN WORKED OUT IS THE ASSESSEE'S UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS PR OFITS. THUS THE ACTION OF THE AO IN REJECTING THE DECLARED BOOK PROFITS IS UPHELD AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION OF RS . 32,25,772/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUSTAI NED. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S DISMISSED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE SEAR CH IS CONDUCTED IN PAVITRA GROUP OF CASES INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE ON 16.02.2012. THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELATIN G TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS 2009-10 I.E. ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010-11. THE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DAT ED 13.04.2009 IS FILED ON RECORD WHICH PROVES THAT ASS ESSEE FIRM HAS TWO PARTNERS NAMELY SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR GOY AL AND SHRI DHARAM PAL AND THE PARTNERSHIP DEED IS EFF ECTIVE 7 ON 16.04.2009. PB-18 IS THE LETTER DATED 20.04.200 9 WRITTEN BY STATE BANK OF PATIALA, MANI MAJRA TO SHR I DHARAMPAL REGARDING LOAN APPLICATION OF RS. 50 LACS IN WHICH SHRI DHARAMPAL GARG WAS ADVISED TO RE-SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS IN PRESCRIBED FORMAT FOR GRANT OF LOAN AN D ALL THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY SHRI DHARAMPAL GARG WERE ALSO RETURNED TO HIM. THE CHIEF MANAGER OF THE BAN K HAS ALSO WRITTEN A LETTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATE D 08.11.2013 INTIMATING THE SAME FACTS THAT SINCE REQ UEST FOR LOAN WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN PROPER FORM, THEREFOR E, SAME PAPERS WERE RETURNED TO THE CONCERNED PARTY. THE B ANK HAS ALSO INTIMATED THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALL THE DO CUMENTS WHICH WERE SUBMITTED ALONGWITH THE LOAN APPLICATION . ON COMPARISON, WE FIND THAT ALL THE LOAN PAPERS WHICH WERE SUBMITTED TO STATE BANK OF PATIALA ARE THE SAME SEI ZED DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH AND HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER. IT WOULD, THEREFORE, CLEARLY SHOW THAT WHATEVER DOC UMENTS WERE SUBMITTED TO STATE BANK OF PATIALA FOR GRANT O F LOAN, WERE RETURNED BACK TO SHRI DHARAMPAL GARG, ONE OF T HE PARTNER IN THE ASSESSEE FIRM FOR RE-SUBMITTING THE DOCUMENTS TO THE BANK IN PROPER FORMAT FOR GRANT OF LOAN. THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE BANK TO SHRI DHARAMPAL GA RG IS DATED 20.04.2009, COPY OF WHICH IS ALSO FILED AT PA GE 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK. SAME FACTS WERE INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK FROM THESE SEIZED PAPERS, WH ICH ARE SAME AS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE BANKER FOR GRANT OF L OAN 8 THAT ASSESSEE EARNED PROFIT IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2009- 10 TO THE TUNE OF RS. 32,25,772/-. THIS FACT ITSELF IS I NCORRECT BECAUSE WHEN THE ASSESSEE FIRM CAME INTO EXISTENCE ON 16.04.2009, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF PREPARING PROFI T & LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET PRIOR TO 20.04.2009 BECAUSE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10, BALANCE SHEET A ND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT COULD BE PREPARED ONLY ON 31.03.2010. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FIRM CAME INTO EXIS TENCE ONLY ON 16.04.2009 AND THE BANKER HAD RETURNED THE LOAN APPLICATION TO ONE OF THE PARTNER ON 20.04.2009, TH EREFORE, CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT THAT THE LOAN PAPERS WERE MERELY A PROJECTED SALE PURCHASES AND ESTIMATE D PROFIT IN FUTURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANT OF LOAN O NLY. THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE EARNED THE PROFIT OF RS. 32,23,772/- ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEI ZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 8(I) IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED HERE THAT DOCUMENTS WE RE SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI HARSH GOYAL AND STATEMENT OF THE PARTNER SHRI PARDEEP GOYAL WAS REC ORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN WHICH HE HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS DID NOT BELONG TO HIS CON CERN. HE HAS ALSO FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT HE CANNOT EXPLAI N THE ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THIS NOTE BOOK BECAUSE AS PER EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SEIZED NOTEBOOK WA S PREPARED BY SHRI DHARAMPAL GARG, ANOTHER PARTNER FO R THE PURPOSE OF GETTING LOAN FROM THE STATE BANK OF PATI ALA, CHANDIGARH. HOWEVER, NO STATEMENT OF SHRI DHARAMPA L 9 GARG HAVE BEEN RECORDED. THEREFORE, THERE IS NOTHI NG WRONG IN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR GOYAL IN NOT EXPLAINING THE ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THE NOTEBOO K. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ENTRIES IN THE NOTEPAD WHICH W ERE MERELY PROJECTED SALE AND PURCHASE OF NEW CONCERN F OR THE PURPOSE OF GRANT OF LOAN, COULD NOT FORM PART OF TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND WOULD NOT HAVE DISCL OSE ANY PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON DECISION OF HON'BLE MA DRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS N SWAMY 241 ITR 36 3 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : ASSESSEE HAVING EXPLAINED THAT THE VALUE OF THE STOCKS AS STATED BY HIM IN THE DECLARATION GIVEN TO THE BANK WAS INFLATED AND THAT HE HAD NOT SUPPRESSED THE VALUE OF THE STOCK NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES MERELY RELYING ON SUCH STATEMENT. 9. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V CHAUHAN PAPERS PVT. LTD. IN ITA 358/2005 DATED 12.10.2006 IN WHICH ALSO IT WAS FOUND THAT ADDITION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS VARIATION IN THE STOCKS STATEMENT FURNISHED TO THE BANK AND THE CLOSING STOCK IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS. THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. 10. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR T HAT SEIZED PAPERS ARE THE SAME WHICH WERE SUBMITTED TO THE BANK FOR GRANT OF LOAN. HOWEVER, NO LOAN WAS GRANT ED. 10 THESE WERE NOT IN PROPER FORMAT. THE BANKER INTIMA TED SHRI DHARAMPAL GARG BY RETURNING LOAN APPLICATION O N 20.04.2009 AND AS SUCH ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PAPERS SUBMITTED WITH LOAN APPLI CATION WERE MERELY PROJECTED PAPERS AND AS SUCH NO ADDITIO N IS JUSTIFIED ON THE BASIS OF RECOVERY OF THESE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIF ICATION TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS. 32,23,772/- IN THE H ANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITIO N. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ITA 178/CHD/2015 (SHRI DHARAM PAL GARG) 12. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NOS. 1 AND 3 OF THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. THE SAME A RE DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. 13. GROUND NOS. 4 AND 5 ARE GENERAL THEREFORE, NEED NO ADJUDICATION. 14. ON GROUND NOS. 2, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 35,08,569/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CAPITA L. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME SEIZED HAND WRITTEN NOTEPA ID, AS IS CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF FIRM M/S NEW SAGAR ENTERPRISES ABOVE, FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS CAPITAL OF RS. 44,45,623/- AND WHEN THIS WAS CONFRONTED TO SHRI PR ADEEP GOYAL, HE WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SAME SEIZED P APERS DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE REITERAT ED THE 11 SAME FACTS THAT THESE WERE PROJECTED PAPERS FOR GET TING LOAN FROM THE BANK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTE D THAT SINCE IN THE SEIZED PAPERS, CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY S HRI DHARAMPAL GARG IS SHOWN IN A SUM OF RS.44,45,623/- AND THE ACTUAL CAPITAL SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET IS ON LY RS. 937,054/-, THEREFORE, UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL WAS CONSIDERED IN A SUM OF RS. 35,08,569/- AND ADDITION OF THE SAME WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SAME AS IS CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF FIRM M/S NEW SAGAR ENTERPRISES (SUPRA) IN WHICH ON THE B ASIS OF SAME SEIZED PAPERS, WE HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM. SINCE IT WAS ALREADY HELD THAT T HE SEIZED PAPERS ARE ONLY PROJECTED BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, FOR GETTING LOAN FROM THE BANK AND COULD N OT BE CONSIDERED AS ACTUAL PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALA NCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUEST ION OF UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE SHRI DHARAMPAL GARG IN A SUM OF RS. 44,45,623/-. THE ADDITION IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. BY FOLLOWING THE R EASONS FOR DECISION IN CASE OF THE FIRM M/S NEW SAGAR ENTE RPRISES (SUPRA) WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELO W AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 35,08,569/-. THIS GROUN D OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12 ITA 177/CHD/2015 ( SHRI PRADEEP GOYAL ) 16. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE SIMILARLY CHALLENG ED THE ADDITION OF RS. 37,29,372/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED CAPITAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THE BASIS OF TH E SAME SEIZED DOCUMENTS, AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF M/S NEW SAGAR ENTERPRISES (SUPRA) FOUND THAT ASSESSEE S HRI PRADEEP GOYAL HAS INTRODUCED RS. 41,20,757/- AND BY INVESTING THE ACTUAL CAPITAL IN A SUM OF RS. 3,91,3 85/-, MADE ADDITION OF RS. 37,29,372/-. THIS ISSUE IS SA ME AS HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM M/S NEW SAGAR ENTERPRISES (SUPRA) AND SHRI DHARAMPAL GA RG ( SUPRA), THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE REASONS FOR DECI SION IN THESE CASES, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 37,29,372/-. 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA 17 5/2015 AND ITA 177/2015 ARE ALLOWED. HOWEVER, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA 178/2015 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND SEPT.,2015. SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCUONTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2 ND SEPT.,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH