Sh. RiazuddinKhan, Firozabad V. A.C.I.T., Circle-I, Firozabad

ITA 1831/AGR/1995

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7681 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 17 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 1990-1991
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-1995
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard; Capital receipt
• Section: 234B; 131; 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1831 & 1832/DEL./1995 ASSTT. YEAR : 1990-91 & 1991-92 RIAZUDDIN KHAN, SHAHABUDDIN KHAN GLASS WORKS, VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, FIROZABAD. FIROZABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANURAG SINHA, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 18.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 27.07.2012 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-I, AGRA DATED 13.01.1995 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91 AND DATED 16.02.1995 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92. SINCE C OMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THEREFORE, BOTH WERE HEARD TOGETH ER AND WE DISPOSE OF THE SAME THROUGH THIS COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. EARLIER, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE D ISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 27.07.2006 FOR NON-PROSECUTION BY THE ASSESSEE. HOW EVER, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSING BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E WERE RECALLED IN MISCELLANEOUS ITA NO. 1831 & 1832/DEL./1995 2 APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN M.A. NO. 90 & 91 OF 2008 VIDE ORDER DATED 22.06.2012. THE APPEALS WERE, THEREFORE, FIXED FOR FINAL HEARING. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO. 1831/DEL./1995 : 4. ON GROUND NO. 1, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADD ITION OF RS.43,160/- ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY THE PARTNER. IT IS S TATED THAT THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,03,160/- BEING THE CREDITS IN THE NAMES OF NAFISUL HASAN (RS.38,160/-), SARWARI BEGUM (28500/-) AND NAZIMA NAZ (36,500/-). ALL THESE PERSONS ARE PARTNERS IN THE FIRM. IT IS STATED BEFORE THE AO TH AT NAFISUL HASAN HAD MADE THE DEPOSITS OUT OF FACTORY INCOME, BUT NO OTHER EVIDEN CE WAS FILED. HE IS NOT ASSESSED TO TAX. IN RESPECT OF SMT. SARWARI BEGUM ALSO, IT W AS STATED THAT SHE HAD INCOME FROM RENT AND PLASTIC BANGLE BUSINESS, BUT NO DETAI LS WERE FILED. SHE IS NOT ASSESSED TO TAX. REGARDING SMT. NAZIMA BEGUM, IT WAS STATED THAT SHE HAD INCOME FROM ORNAMENTATION OF BANGLES. SHE IS NOT ASSESSED TO TA X. THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDIT ION U/S. 68 OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) REGARDING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CREDITS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTNERS ITA NO. 1831 & 1832/DEL./1995 3 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM. IT WA S ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRM STARTED BUSINESS W.E.F. 01.08.1989, ALTHOUGH ACTUAL PRODUCTION COMMENCED IN JANUARY, 1990. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD REGARDING THE EXTENT AND EXISTENCE OF BUSINESS COND UCTED BY THE PARTNERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES AND RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF KANPUR BROTHERS VS. CIT , 118 ITR 741 THAT THE ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. THE LD. CIT(A ), THEREFORE, FOUND THAT THE ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO THE INITIAL INVESTMENT OF RS.20,000/- EACH BY THE PARTNER ON 01.08.1989, THE LD. CIT(A) F OUND THAT THE POSITION IS DIFFERENT AS REGARDS THESE AMOUNTS. THERE WAS NO MA TERIAL FOUND TO HOLD THAT ON THE FIRST DAY OF CONSTITUTION OF FIRM, THE FIRM COULD H AVE ANY SUPPRESSED INCOME. THEREFORE, OUT OF ADDITION AT RS.1,03,160/-, THE LD . CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.60,000/- AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITIO N OF RS.43,160/-. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SHARDA OIL MILLS, ITA NO. 72/AGR./2010 DAT ED 31.05.2011, IN WHICH FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF SUNDER LAL JAIN VS. CIT, DECISION OF HONBLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. METACHEM INDUSTRIES AND OF GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PANKAJ DYE STUFF, IT WAS HELD ITA NO. 1831 & 1832/DEL./1995 4 THAT NO ADDITION U/S. 68 CAN BE MADE IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS IN THE FIRM. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED U PON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPRME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION LTD., 157 ITR 78 AND ORD ER OF ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF PARAS COLLINS DISTILLERIES VS. ITO, 130 ITD 114, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CAPITAL CO NTRIBUTED BY THE PARTNERS OR THE THIRD PARTY OR UNSECURED LOAN RECEIVED BY THE PARTY . THEREFORE, ADDITION U/S. 68 ON CAPITAL INTRODUCTION BY THE PARTNER CAN BE MADE. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ONUS UPON THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED TO PROVE THE C REDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTNERS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION IN THE MATTER. IT IS ADMITT ED FACT THAT THE FIRM STARTED BUSINESS W.E.F. 01.08.1989, I.E., DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION COMMENCED IN JAN UARY, 1990, WHICH FACT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THE CAPIT AL HAS BEEN INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS IN THE FIRM. THE LD. CIT(A) PARTLY ACCEPTE D THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTNERS. IF ADDITION U/S. 68 IS TO BE MADE, NO DIS TINCTION COULD BE DRAWN FOR PARTLY ACCEPTING THE CREDITWORTHINESS. EITHER WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT IS TO BE DISALLOWED OR THE ENTIRE HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT (A) RIGHTLY NOTED THAT THERE WAS ITA NO. 1831 & 1832/DEL./1995 5 NO MATERIAL FOUND TO HOLD THAT ON THE FIRST DATE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FIRM, THE FIRM COULD HAVE ANY SUPPRESSED INCOME. IN THIS REGA RD, WE RELY UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BHA RAT ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO., 83 ITR 187, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THE ASSESSEE, AN ENGINEERING-CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, COMMENCED ITS BUSINESS IN MAY, 1943. IN ITS ACCOUNT S THERE WERE SEVERAL CASH CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE FIRST YEAR OF IT S BUSINESS TOTALING RS.2,50,000. THOUGH THE EXPLANATION REGARDING THE C ASH CREDIT ENTRIES WAS FOUND TO BE FALSE, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THESE CASH CREDITS COULD NOT REPRESENT THE INCOME OR PROFITS O F THE ASSESSEE AS THEY WERE ALL MADE VERY SOON AFTER THE COMPANY COMM ENCED ITS ACTIVITIES : HELD, THAT THE INFERENCE DRAWN FROM THE FACTS PROV ED WAS A QUESTION OF FACT AND THE TRIBUNALS FINDING ON THAT QUESTION WAS FINAL. A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY TOOK TIME TO EARN PROFITS AN D IT COULD NOT HAVE EARNED A HUGE PROFIT WITHIN A FEW DAYS AFTER T HE COMMENCEMENT OF ITS BUSINESS. HENCE, IT WAS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT THE CASH CREDIT ENTRIES REPRESENTED CAPITAL RECEIPTS THOUGH FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COME OUT WITH THE TRUE STORY AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF THE RECEIPTS. 6.1 FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION BECAUSE AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED NET PROFIT FOR FILING OF THE RETURN AT RS.3200/- ONLY. HENCE, THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AN Y SUPPRESSED INCOME. THUS, IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT THE CASH CREDIT ENTRIES R EPRESENTED CAPITAL RECEIPTS INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS. FURTHER, THE ITAT, AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHARDA OIL MILLS, DELETED THE ADDITION FOLLOWING THE DECIS ION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ITA NO. 1831 & 1832/DEL./1995 6 AND OTHERS IN THE CASE OF SUNDER LAL JAIN, METACHEM INDUSTRIES AND PANKAJ DYE STUFF (SUPRA), IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT NO ADDITIO N U/S. 68 CAN BE MADE IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS IN THE FI RM. THE DECISION CITED BY THE LD. DR ARE, THEREFORE, NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF T HE CASE. THE ORDER OF THE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH CANNOT BE GIVEN PREFERENCE AGAINST THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND ADDITION OF RS.43,160/- IS DELETED. I N THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 1 OF APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. ON GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADD ITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN THE NAME OF GAURAV BANS AL (50,450/-), HILALUDDIN (19500/-), GULAM HUSAIN (19500/-) AND SMT. SITARA B EGUM (18450/-). IN RESPECT OF GAURAV BANSAL, IT WAS FOUND THAT HE WAS MINOR AND R ETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1986-87 TO 1988-89 WERE FILED SHOWING INCOME FROM O THER SOURCES AND NO BALANCE SHEET OR OTHER DETAILS WERE FILED. CONFIRMATION LET TER WAS FILED, BUT HE WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN SPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUN ITIES GIVEN. IN RESPECT OF HILALUDDIN, CONFIRMATION WAS FILED, BUT NO EVIDENCE OF SOURCE OF LOAN WAS FILED. HE WAS NOT ASSESSED TO TAX AND LOAN WAS GIVEN IN CASH. IN RESPECT OF GULAM HUSAIN, HE WAS NOT FOUND TO BE ASSESSED TO TAX AND LOAN WAS GI VEN IN CASH. IN THE CONFIRMATORY LETTER, NO SOURCE WAS EXPLAINED. ADDITION WAS ACCOR DINGLY MADE. IT WAS SUBMITTED ITA NO. 1831 & 1832/DEL./1995 7 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE SOURCE IN RESPECT OF GAURAV BANSAL WAS EXPLAINED. SHRI HILALUDDIN FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 1990-91 AND IN THE CASE OF GULAM HUSAIN, HE HAS INCOME FROM PAKKI BHATTI AN D FILED RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92. REGARDING SMT. SITARA BEGUM, IT WAS S TATED THAT SHE HAD INCOME FROM ORNAMENTATION OF GLASS BANGLES AND HER HUSBAND HAS SOME RENTAL INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORT HINESS OF THE CREDITORS. SHRI GAURAV BANSAL IS NOT REGULARLY ASSESSED TO TAX AND IN THE RETURNS FILED, NO SOURCE OF INCOME HAS BEEN EXPLAINED. HE WAS ALSO MINOR AND RE GARDING OTHER ALSO NO EVIDENCE ABOUT THE CREDITWORTHINESS HAS BEEN FILED AND CONFIRMATION LETTERS WERE FOUND TO BE PERFUNCTORY. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITIONS WER E CONFIRMED. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT GAURAV BANSAL GAVE LOAN IN FIVE INSTALLMENTS. HIS AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED. HE WAS ASSESSED TO TAX. IN CASE OF HILALUDDIN, RETURN WAS ALSO FILED. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT CONFIRMATIONS OF ALL THE CREDITORS WERE FILED AND IN CASE, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, HE COULD HAVE EXAMINED THE CREDITORS ON OATH. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS. NO EVIDENCE AND SOUR CE OF INCOME WAS FILED. NONE OF ITA NO. 1831 & 1832/DEL./1995 8 THE CREDITORS ARE REGULARLY ASSESSED TO TAX. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARTI PVT. LTD. VS. CIT, 111 ITR 951 HELD AS UNDER : IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE INCOM E-TAX OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RS.20,000 AS LOAN IN ITS BOOKS TAKEN FROM TWO PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE ALLEGED CONFIRMATORY LETTERS FROM THOSE PARTIES BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IN SUPPORT OF THE TWO LOANS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER SERVED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ON THE ALLEGED CREDITORS AND SINCE THOSE NOTICES CAME BACK UNSERVE D, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TREATED THE LOAN AS ASSESSEES INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DISMI SSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT EVEN ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES. ON FURTHER A PPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT MERE FILING OF CON FIRMATORY LETTERS DID NOT DISCHARGE THE ONUS THAT LAY ON THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS NO MATERIAL ON THE RECORD TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS: HELD, THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD TAKEN ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS INTO CONSIDERATION AND THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE LOANS REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEES INCOME FROM UNDISC LOSED SOURCES WAS NOT PERVERSE OR UNREASONABLE. 9.1 THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS UNITED COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CO. (P) LTD., 187 ITR 596 HELD AS UN DER: THE PRIMARY ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDITS IN ITS ACCOUNT. IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE ITA NO. 1831 & 1832/DEL./1995 9 PRIMA FACIE THE IDENTITY OF HIS CREDITORS, THE CAPA CITY OF SUCH CREDITORS TO ADVANCE THE MONEY AND LASTLY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. ONLY WHEN THESE THINGS ARE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE P RIMA FACIE AND ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDUCED EVIDENCE TO EST ABLISH THE AFORESAID FACTS DOES THE ONUS SHIFT ON TO THE DEPAR TMENT. IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS. MERE PRODUCTION OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX OFFI CER WOULD NOT BY ITSELF PROVE THAT THE LOANS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM THOSE LOAN CREDITORS OR THAT THEY HAVE CREDIT-WORTHINESS. HELD, THAT, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL MISDI RECTED ITSELF IN HOLDING THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE SIMPLY B ECAUSE SOME OF THE TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE BY CHEQUES. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF THE ALLEGED LENDERS. A NUM BER OF OTHER ASSESSEES HAD ALSO ADMITTED THAT LOANS OBTAINED FRO M THESE BANKERS AGAINST HUNDIS WERE NOT GENUINE AND SUCH HUNDI LOAN S REALLY REPRESENTED THEIR OWN CONCEALED INCOME. THE ASSESSE E HAD NOT DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE LOANS IN QUESTION WERE GENUINE. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE MERELY PRODUCED CONFIRMA TORY LETTERS FROM THE CREDITORS WITHOUT INDICATING THEIR SOURCE OF INCOME TO PROVE THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AFFI DAVIT IN THE CASE OF GAURAV BANSAL WAS FILED. HE WAS MINOR AND ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED T O PRODUCE SHRI GAURAV BANSAL IN ORDER TO EXAMINE HIM ON OATH TO FIND OUT THE TRU TH, BUT HE WAS NOT PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION BEFORE THE AO. THE RETURNS FILED BY HIM FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE FILED AT MEAGER INCOME AND NO CAPITAL ACCOUNT OR OT HER DETAILS WERE FURNISHED. SINCE HE WAS MINOR, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO SOURCE OF INCOME WITH HIM. IN THE CASES OF OTHER CREDITORS ALSO NO EVIDENCES OF THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS WAS FILED. ITA NO. 1831 & 1832/DEL./1995 10 THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITW ORTHINESS OF ALL THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE MATTER. MERE FILING OF CONFIRMATION IS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 O F THE IT ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN GROUND NO. 2 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. SAME IS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 10. ON GROUND NO. 3 & 4, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED TH E ADDITION OF RS.3,43,436/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN DRAFTS. THE AO MADE ABO VE ADDITION FOR INVESTMENT IN BANK DRAFTS DEPOSITED WITH CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. (CCL), RANCHI. THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED ROAD DELIVERY ORDER FOR 715 MT OF COAL WHICH WAS TO BE DELIVERED BY CCL, RANCH. FOR THIS PURPOSE A BANK DRAFT FOR RS.3, 43,436/- DATED 02.03.1990 WAS OBTAINED AND DEPOSITED WITH CCL. AGAINST 715 MT OF COAL, THE CCL, RANCHI RELEASED 578.2 MT OF COAL VIDE LETTER DATED 22.03.9 0. ON THE DATE OF SEARCH U/S. 131(1) OF THE ACT, THE BALANCE OF COAL WEIGHING 136 .18 MT WAS UNDELIVERED VALUED AT RS.65,411/- OF WHICH DEEMED SEIZURE WAS MADE U/S . 132(3) OF THE ACT. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO OBTAINED C OPIES OF APPLICATIONS, AFFIDAVIT ETC. FILED WITH THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIE S, KANPUR AND ALSO APPLICATION FILED WITH CCL. ALL THESE PAPERS WERE UNDER THE SIGNATURE S OF SHRI ANIS AHMED, PARTNER OF THE FIRM. STATEMENT OF SHRI ANIS AHMAD KHAN WAS RECORDED BY THE AO AND IN THIS STATEMENT SHRI ANIS AHMAD KHAN STATED THAT THE LETTER HEAD USED FOR ITA NO. 1831 & 1832/DEL./1995 11 APPLICATIONS DID NOT BELONG TO THE FIRM. HE ALSO ST ATED THAT THE SIGNATURES ON THESE PAPERS WERE NOT HIS AND MIGHT HAVE BEEN FORGED. STA TEMENT OF ANOTHER PARTNER SHRI GULAM MUSTAFA KHAN WAS ALSO RECORDED BY AO. SHRI GU LAM MUSTAFA STATED AN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT STORY. HE DEPOSED THAT THE INV ESTMENT HAD BEEN MADE BY A LOCAL AGENT WHO WAS TO RECEIVE COMMISSION. HE, HOWEVER, F AILED TO DISCLOSE THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE AGENT. THE AO COMPARED THE SIGNA TURES OF SHRI ANIS AHMAD ON THE VARIOUS PAPERS AND AFFIDAVITS AND FOUND THAT TH E SIGNATURES WERE EXACTLY SIMILAR. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, KANPUR ALSO CONFIRMED T HAT THE ROAD DELIVERY ORDER HAD BEEN ISSUED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. TH E ROAD DELIVERY ORDER IS NON- TRANSFERABLE. THE AO HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT TAKE ANY LEGAL ACTION OR INTIMATE THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND CCL THAT TH E PAPERS FILED WITH THEM WERE FORGED DOCUMENTS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO TR EATED THE INVESTMENT OF RS.3,43,436/- AS UNEXPLAINED AND MADE THE ADDITION U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO, IT WAS SUBMITTE D BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO IS NOT A HAND-WRITING EXPERT A ND IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEES DENIAL, THE MATTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO AN EXPERT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MUSTAFA KHAN WAS IN CONNECTIO N WITH THE A.Y. 1991-92 AND NO COGNIZANCE CAN BE TAKEN OF IT. ITA NO. 1831 & 1832/DEL./1995 12 10.1 THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 5.3 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 5.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HAVE AL SO PERUSED THE RELEVANT PAPERS AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. IT IS UNDOUBTEDLY A FACT THAT ALLOTMENT OF COAL IS MADE ON THE RECOMMEN DATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, KANPUR FOR WHICH RELEVANT A PPLICATION HAS TO BE FILED ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT THAT COAL WILL BE USE D IN MANUFACTURING. THE AFFIDAVIT IS SWORN BEFORE A NOTARY. IT IS NOT P OSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT THESE PAPERS COULD BE FORGED. THE APPLICATION BEFOR E CCL ALSO BEARS THE SIGNATURE OF SHRI ANIS AHMAD. THE SIGNATURES ON THE VARIOUS PAPERS OBTAINED BY THE AO INCLUDING THE AFFIDAVIT A RE QUITE SIMILAR. HAVING SEEN ALL THESE, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLD ING THAT SHRI ANIS AHMAD HAD OBTAINED ROAD PERMIT UNDER HIS OWN SIGNAT URES AND THE SUBSEQUENT STORY OF DENIAL IS ONLY AN AFTER THOUGHT . THE STATEMENT OF SHRI GULAM MUSTAFA MIGHT BE RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 19 91-92 BUT, IN THAT YEAR ALSO SHRI ANIS AHMAD WAS DENYING HIS SIGNATURE S. THIS OBVIOUSLY LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SHRI ANIS AHMAD IS CON CEALING THE FACTS. ON THE FACTS FOUND THAT DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE SOURCE OF INVE STMENT HAD NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. THE ADDITION OF RS.3,43,436/- IS CONFIRM ED. 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE D ENIED INVESTMENT IN THE DRAFTS FOR LIFTING ANY COAL. NO EXPERT OPINION HAS BEEN OB TAINED TO VERIFY THE SIGNATURES. THEREFORE, DENIAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFICIENT FO R DELETING THE ADDITION. THE AO HAS NOT OBTAINED ANY APPLICATION FROM THE BANK TO P ROVE AS TO WHO HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN DRAFT AND THE ONUS ON THE AO HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE O F M/S. PREM CHAND MOHINDER PARTAP (HUF) VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 3036/DEL/1996 DATE D 22.03.2000. HE HAS ALSO ITA NO. 1831 & 1832/DEL./1995 13 RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT I N THE CASE OF KISHAN CHAND CHELA RAM VS. CIT, 125 ITR 713 AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF R. THIAGARAJAN VS. CIT, 239 ITR 557, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 69A WILL APPLY ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUN D TO BE OWNER OF MONEY IN QUESTION. MERE SIGNATURE ON THE APPLICATION FORM FO R DRAFT WAS NOT CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT WHEN NO ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE ITO. THE MATTER WAS, THEREFORE, REMANDED TO THE AUTHORITY BELOW. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DAYA CHAND JAIN VAIDYA, 98 ITR 280 IN WHICH THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL WAS DISMISSED AS NO MATERIA L WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD, WHICH COULD CONCLUDE THAT THE DEPOSIT MADE BY THE W IFE AND MAJOR SONS WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT WAS HELD TH AT NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92, ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF ASSESSEE FIRM, SHRI GULAM MUSTAFA WAS EXAMINED, IN WHICH HE HAS ADMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN THESE DRAFTS HAS BEEN MADE BY THE LOC AL AGENT, WHICH WERE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THEREFORE, SPECIFIC M ATERIAL IS BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE INVESTMENT IN DRAFTS HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSES SEE FIRM. HE HAS RELIED UPON SECTION 106 AND 110 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT WHEN THE FACTS WERE IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AS SESSEE SHOULD EXPLAIN THE SAME ITA NO. 1831 & 1832/DEL./1995 14 OTHERWISE ADVERSE INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN DRAFTS H AS NOT BEEN PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM, THEREFORE, MERE DENIAL IS NOT SUFFIC IENT TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE F ACTS, NOTED ABOVE, ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THERE WAS A SEARCH AT CCL, RANCHI AND MATE RIAL WAS COLLECTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT IN DRAFTS. THE STATEMENT O F SHRI GULAM MUSTAFA, PARTNER IN ASSESSEE FIRM, WAS RECORDED ON 14.11.1990 AND IN STATEMENT HE HAS STATED THAT BANK DRAFT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE OFFICE OF CCL, RANC HI REGARDING SUPPLY OF COAL. THE DRAFT WAS DEPOSITED THROUGH LOCAL AGENT OF ASSE SSEE FIRM AND HE HAS ADMITTED THAT THE MONEY FOR INVESTMENT IN DRAFT WAS NOT WITH DRAWN FROM THE CASH BOOK OR BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THESE FACTS ARE SPECI FICALLY NOTED IN PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92. H E HAS, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED INVESTMENT IN THE DRAFT BY LOCAL AGENT, BUT HE COUL D NOT EXPLAIN THE DETAILS OF THE LOCAL AGENT WHO MADE THE INVESTMENT. CERTIFIED COPI ES OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE DIRECT OR OF INDUSTRIES AND ROAD PERMITS WERE ALSO ISSUED. THE DETAILS COLLECTED PRO VE THAT THE SAME WERE SIGNED BY SHRI ANIS AHMED, PARTNER OF THE FIRM AND HIS SIGNAT URE TALLY WITH THE RECORD OF THE AO. THE LETTERHEAD OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS USED WH ICH BEARS SIGNATURE OF ANIS AHMED AND ALSO THE AFFIDAVIT BEARS HIS SIGNATURE WH ICH ALSO TALLY WITH THE ADMITTED ITA NO. 1831 & 1832/DEL./1995 15 SIGNATURE OF THE PARTNER. THEREFORE, MERE DENIAL BY ANIS AHMED, LATER ON WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH TO AVOID THE LIABILITY IN THE MATTER. THE ASSESSEE FIRM OR ANY OF THE PARTNERS HAVE NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION AFTER THE DOCUME NTS WERE COLLECTED IN SEARCH AND THE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY THE AO. THE ROAD DELIV ERY ORDERS WERE FOUND TO BE NON-TRACEABLE AND NO OTHER PERSONS COULD HAVE TAKEN DELIVERY OF THE COAL EXCEPT THE ASSESSEE FIRM OR PARTNER ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM. SIN CE ONE OF THE PARTNERS ADMITTED THAT INVESTMENT IN DRAFT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE LOCAL AGENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND NO AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN EITHER FROM THE CASH BOOK OR BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WOULD REVEAL THAT THE A SSESSEE FIRM HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN DRAFT DEPOSITED WITH THE AUTHORITY FOR OBTAINING THE DELIVERY OF THE COAL. SINCE ALL THE PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS FOR TAKING DELIVERY OF COA L WERE FOUND UNDER THE SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY COMPLAINT FOR FORGERY OF THE DOCUMENTS AT ANY STAGE, WOULD REVEAL THAT IT WA S ASSESSEE FIRM AND ITS PARTNERS WHO HAD MADE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE DRAFT FO R THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING COAL. SINCE SPECIFIC MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON R ECORD BY THE AO AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND NOTHING IS BROUGHT IN REBUTTAL TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THEREFORE, MERE DENIAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN THE DRAFTS. THE DECISION RELIED U PON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN THESE CASES, NO COGENT OR ITA NO. 1831 & 1832/DEL./1995 16 RELIABLE EVIDENCE WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THESE CASES WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 13.1 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND IN MAKING AND CONFIRMI NG THE ADDITION. GROUNDS NOS. 3 & 4 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 14. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF A PPEAL AS GROUND NO.5, WHICH READS AS UNDER : 5. BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CHARGING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY DIRECTION FOR SUCH CHARGING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE DEMAND SO MADE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST IS ILLEGAL, WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW. 15. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A LEGAL ISSUE AND MAY BE ADMITTED FOR HEARING AND RELIED UPON THE DECISION O F HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. VS. CIT, 229 ITR 383. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOWHERE MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R FOR CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S. 234A AND 234B OF THE IT ACT. THEREFORE, THE SAME CO ULD BE DECIDED AS PER THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. M/S. SARIN CHEMICAL LABORATORY IN WHICH THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT FOLLOWED ITS EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. DEEP AWADH HOT ELS P. LTD. KANPUR. COPIES OF ITA NO. 1831 & 1832/DEL./1995 17 THESE ORDERS OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT DATED 18.05.12 AND 03.08.2011 ARE FILED ON RECORD. HE HAS, HOWEVER, ADMITTED THAT IN THE DEMAND NOTICE, THE AO HAS CHARGED INTEREST U/S. 234A AND 234B OF THE IT ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE INTEREST IS CHARGED IN THE DEMAND NOTICE, WHICH IS PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL GRO UND CANNOT BE ADMITTED FOR HEARING. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HO NBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GEETA RAM KALI RAM, 121 ITR 708 AND OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SWADESHI COTTON MILLS CO. LTD. VS. CIT, 233 ITR 199 (SC). 16. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND SO RAISED ABOVE IS LEGAL IN NATUR E. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THIS GROUND ONLY ON THE BASIS OF RECENT DECISION OF HON BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT DATED 18.05.2012 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. SARIN CHEMIC AL LABORATORY, AGRA, IN WHICH THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT FOLLOWED ITS EARLI ER DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. DEEP AWADH HOTELS P. LTD. (SUPRA). THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RAISE THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A). EVEN NO SUCH GROUND WAS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . THEREFORE, THE ISSUE BEING LEGAL IN NATURE WOULD BE ADMITTED SUBJECT TO THE MATTER C ONSIDERED BY THE AO BECAUSE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER T HIS ISSUE AT ANY STAGE. WE, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE ADMIT THE ADD ITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AND ITA NO. 1831 & 1832/DEL./1995 18 RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RECONSID ERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE AO SHALL DECIDE THIS ISSUE BY GIVING REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIO NAL GROUND (NO. 5) IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 1832/DEL./1995: 17. ON GROUND NO. 1, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE AD DITION OF RS.28,589/- FOR UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF COAL. THE AO MA DE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERVALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF COAL. THE AO INI TIALLY PROPOSED TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.88,940/-, BUT MADE ADDITION OF RS.50 ,260/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED 533- 710 MT OF COAL FOR RS.5,42,092/-. AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE COMES TO RS.1 016/- PER MT AND NOT RS.1115/- AS WORKED OUT BY THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AT THE RATE OF RS.1061/- PER MT, THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK WILL BE RS.2,22, 412/- AND NOT RS.2,44,085/- AS WORKED OUT BY THE AO. THIS WOULD RESULT IN REDUCTIO N OF RS.21,673/-. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD SOME COAL DUST AT THE RATE OF RS.1223/- PER MT WHICH MEANS THAT GOOD QUALITY OF COAL HAD BEEN SOLD AND THE COAL REMAINING IN CLOSING STOCK WAS OF INFERIOR QUALITY AND, THEREFOR E, IT HAD BEEN VALUED AT RS.708/- PER M.T. THE LD. CIT(A), ON FURNISHING DETAILS BEFO RE HIM, ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR RELIEF OF RS.21,673/-. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 1831 & 1832/DEL./1995 19 HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PUT UP ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENC E BEFORE HIM TO SHOW THAT COAL REMAINING IN CLOSING STOCK WAS OF VERY INFERIOR QUA LITY. ACCORDINGLY, PART RELIEF OF RS.21,673/- WAS ALLOWED AND REMAINING ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED. 18. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE D O NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PLEA OF INFER IOR QUALITY OF COAL FOR VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK WAS NOT PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE THR OUGH ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE A BSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE US, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE W ITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). GROUND NO. 1 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDING LY DISMISSED. 19. ON GROUND NO. 2 & 3, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED TH E ADDITION OF RS.2,49,700/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN DRAFT. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ISSUE IS THE SAME AS IS CONSIDERED ON GROUND NO. 3 & 4 OF ASSESSMENT YEA R 1990-91, IN WHICH THE DRAFTS WERE DEPOSITED WITH CCL, RANCHI FOR OBTAINING COAL. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY FOLLOWING HIS ORDER OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91 IN WHICH WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON IDENTICAL I SSUE. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91, GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ARE ALSO DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1831 & 1832/DEL./1995 20 20. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL ALSO RAISED ADDITIO NAL GROUND AS RAISED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91, FOR CHARGING OF INTEREST U /S. 234A & 234B OF THE ACT, IN WHICH WE HAVE ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AND RE STORED THE SAME TO THE AO FOR RECONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ACCORDINGLY , THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IN THIS YEAR IS ALSO ADMITTED AND THE SAME IS RESTORED TO T HE AO FOR RECONSIDERATION AS PER LAW, AS IS DIRECTED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO. 1831/DEL./1995 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND ITA NO. 1832/DEL./1995 IS PARTLY ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY