SHRI RANDIR SINGH , JALANDHAR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JALANDHAR

ITA 205/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7837 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2019
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHRAY SARNA LD
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 133A; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.205(ASR)/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 SH. RANDHIR SINGH, VILL. MALUPUR, SHAHKOT, 193, SANJAY GANDHI MARKET, CIVIL LINES, JALANDHAR. [PAN:AOQPS 9157L] VS. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. ASHRA Y SARNA (LD. CA) RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (LD. DR) DATE OF HEARING: 14.06.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.07.2019 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED B Y THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/02/2018 P ASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-1, JALANDHAR U/S. 250(6) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) WHEREBY THE LD . CIT(A) UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON DATED 29/03/2016 U/S 143 (3) R.W. SEC.147 OF THE ACT. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON DATED 23/05/20 08 DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,89,840/-. IN THE SURVEY ACTION U/S 133A IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES BELONGING TO M/S FOLK FUSION PV T. LTD. 193, SANJAY GANDHI MARKET, CIVIL LINES, JALANDHAR, OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ONE OF THE DIRECTORS, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WER E 2 ITA NO.205/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2008-09) SH. RANDHIR SINGH VS. DCIT IMPOUNDED WHICH INCLUDE AN AGREEMENT TO SELL QUA 48 KA NAL LAND AT VILLAGE SAPROAD, PHAGWARA TO THE ASSESSEE @ 85 LACS P ER ACRE ALONG WITH POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 04/04/2008. AS PE R REVENUE, THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS MADE ON DATED 11/01/2008 AN D TIME OF REGISTRY WAS FIXED UPTO 12.01.2009 AND IN PURSUANCE TO AGREEMENT, THE SELLERS HAVE RECEIVED RS.1,00,00,000/- I N CASH FROM THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT THE ASSESSES HAS ALSO PURCHASED TWO MORE PROPERTIES DURI NG THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,05, 500/- AND RS.1,17,500/- (TOTALING TO RS.7,23,000/-) ON DATED 01 /03/2007 AND 23/07/2007 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE SAID TWO TRANSACTIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME ARE DULY RE FLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE FILED ALONG WITH THE REGULAR RETURN, HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO THE AGREEMENT TO SEL L DEED DATED 11/01/2008, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER PAID ANY AMOUNT TO THE SELLERS NAMELY SH. AMARJ IT SINGH AND SH. JAGPAL SINGH, BECAUSE THE SELLERS WERE RESIDING OUT OF INDIA , THEREFORE THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS MADE JUST TO SHOW THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS THAT THE LAND HAS BEEN PURCHASED B Y THE ASSESSEE @ 85 LAKSH PER ACRE SO THAT THE SELLERS COULD FETCH GOOD AMOUNT AND FURTHER EXECUTED THE GENERAL POWER OF ATT ORNEY 04/04/2008 JUST TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SELL THEIR LAND BY CUTTING IN PIECES/PLOTTING . THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GET IMPRESS BY THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,00,000/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY HOLDING THAT THE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN ENTERED BETWEEN SH. AMARJIT SINGH AND SH. JAGPAL S INGH (AS THE SELLERS) AND THE ASSESSEE (AS THE BUYER) AND HAS BEEN DULY SIGNED BY ALL THE THREE PERSONS AND IN THE AGREEMENT I T IS CLEARLY 3 ITA NO.205/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2008-09) SH. RANDHIR SINGH VS. DCIT MENTIONED THAT CASH OF RS.1,00,00,000/- HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SELLERS AS ADVANCE. IT IS ALSO SEEN FROM THE IMPOUNDED RECORD, IN VIEW OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL, T HE POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS ALSO DULY EXECUTED ON 04/04/2018. 2.1 FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ADDED THE AMOUN T OF RS.6,40,000/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NT BY GIVING A BENEFIT OF RS.91,550/- (CASH IN HANDS+ AGRICULT URAL INCOME+ INCOME DURING THE YEAR), OUT OF TOTAL INVESTME NT OF RS.7,31,550/- BY HOLDING THAT NO BENEFIT OF ADVANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RS.6,40,000/- CAN BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BECAU SE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR 2006-07 WAS AROUND 6,46,000/-, AGAINST WHICH HE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSE S OF RS.4,30,000/- THEREFORE, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 2006-07 WAS AROUND RS.2,00,000/- ONLY. IF THE HO USE HOLD WITHDRAWAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO CONSIDERED AT A MINIMU M LEVEL OF RS.10,000/- TO RS.15,000/- A MONTH THEN THE ASSESSEE LEFT WITH VERY MINIMAL SURPLUS TO GIVE THE ADVANCE FOR THE PURCHASED PROPERTY, MOREOVER THE ADVANCE HAS BEEN GIVE N IN CASH THEREFORE, NO BENEFIT OF SAME CAN BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 2.2 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE SAID ADDITIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11/01/2008, DI SMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT AS PER AGREE MENT TO SELL FOUND DURING THE SURVEY AT THE OFFICE OF M/S FOLK FUSION PVT. LTD., OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ONE OF DIRECTORS, THE ASSE SSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RS.1 CRORE IN CASH QUA PURCHASE OF 4 8 KANALS LAND AT VILLAGE SAPOROAD, @ 85 LACS PER ACRE. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS OF 4 ITA NO.205/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2008-09) SH. RANDHIR SINGH VS. DCIT 48 KANALS. THE APPELLANT IS SHOWING THAT OUT OF TOTAL LAND OF 48 KANALS, 21 KANALS 16 MARLAS STILL STANDS IN THE NAME OF SELLERS OR THE ORIGINAL OWNERS . THE DETAILS OF OWNERSHIP OF B ALANCE LAND OF MORE THAN 26 KANALS HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECOR D TO SHOW AS TO IN WHOSE NAME, THE SAID LAND HAS BEEN SOLD OR TRA NSFERRED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SUBSEQUENTLY POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS REVOKED AND THE LAN D IS STILL OWNED BY THE SELLERS IS NOT PROVED. THE LD. CIT(A) FIN ALLY CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.1 CRORE IN CASH FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND AS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS CONFIRMED. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION OF RS.6,40,000/- BY OBSERVING THAT SINCE NO BALANCE SHEET WA S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME AND THERE I S NO DOCUMENT OR PROOF CO-RELATING REGARDING PAYMENT OF AD VANCE IN AN EARLY YEAR, THEREFORE, FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ARE UPHELD. 3. THE ASSESSEE ON BEING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4.1 GROUND NO.1 - THIS GROUND WAS NOT PRESSED SPECIFICALLY BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, NO REPLY HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, HENCE, DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUD ICATION. 5 ITA NO.205/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2008-09) SH. RANDHIR SINGH VS. DCIT 4.2 GROUND NO.2 - THIS GROUND RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFFIR MED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH AS PER ASSESSEE , HAS BEEN MADE BY IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT OBSERV ING THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 11/01/2008 AND GE NERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 04/04/2008 QUA PURCHASE OF 48 KANALS LAND AT VILLAGE SAPROAD AT THE RATE OF RS. 85 LAC PER ACRE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SH. AMARJIT SINGH AND SH. JAGPAL SINGH. I T IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE SAID LAND HAS BEEN TRANSFER RED BY WAY OF GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 04/04/2008 A S WELL, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT LAND OWNER NAMELY SH . AMARJIT SINGH AND SH. JAGPAL SINGH ARE RESIDING OUTS IDE INDIA THEREFORE, THEY APPOINTED THEIR FRIEND SH. RANDHIR SINGH (THE ASSESSEE) AS THEIR ATTORNEY TO SELL THE LAND IN CUTTING PL OTS/PIECES AND WITH INTENTION AND IN ORDER TO ALLURE AND TO SHO W THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS, THE GENUINE AUTHORITY TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AT A SPECIFIED R ATE, THE SAID AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 11/01/2008 WAS EXECUTE D, IN ORDER TO SELL THE SAID LAND ON HIGHER RATES, BY CUTTIN G IN PLOTS/PIECES. IT WAS FURTHER CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THOUGH THE OWNERS OF THE LAND EXECUTED AGREEMENT TO SELL AND GENERAL POWER ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO MATERIALIZE ANY SALE, THEREFORE, THE OWNER OF THE LAND VIDE REVOCATION DEED DATED 21-10-2009 REVOKED THE GE NERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 04/04/2008 AND THUS THE ASSESSE E DO NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT OVER THE PROPERTY EITHER TO ENJO Y AND/OR TO SELL IN MARKET AND THE MAJOR PART OF LAND STILL EXIST S IN THE NAME OF SH. AMARJIT SINGH AND SH. JAGPAL SINGH WHICH REF LECTS FROM 6 ITA NO.205/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2008-09) SH. RANDHIR SINGH VS. DCIT FARAD JAMABANDI DATED 06/06/2017. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER DEMONSTRATED THAT THE LAND OWNER ALSO ISSUED THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 22 ND OCTOBER, 2009 TO THE ASSESSEE QUA CANCELLATION OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 04/04/2008 VIDE CANCELLATION DEED OF GPA DATED 21/10/2009. FOR THE BENCH SATISFACTION, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO CLARIFY THE STATUS OF LAND I.E. 48 KANALS, O F WHICH THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS EXECUTED. THE LD. AR FILED THE DETAILED CHART WHEREIN 14 KANALS 7.5 MARLAS HAVE DULY BEEN SOLD BY THE LAND OWNERS THROUGH SH. RAVINDER KUMAR & SH. PUNIT K UMAR. FROM THE SALE TRANSACTIONS/DEEDS, THE ROLE OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT REFLECT IN PARTICULAR. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED T HAT OUT OF 48 KANALS, 21 KANALS AND 18 MARLA STILL EXISTS IN THE N AME OF THE ORIGINAL OWNERS AS REFLECTS FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER ITSELF. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE THOUGH F AIRLY ADMITTED THE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATE D 11/01/2008 AND GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 04/0 4/2008, HOWEVER, CLAIMED THAT AS THE LAND OWNERS WERE NOT LIVI NG IN INDIA AND WANTED TO SELL THEIR LAND IN PIECES/BY PLOT TING THEREFORE, APPOINTED THE ASSESSEE AS THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND ALSO EXECUTED THE AGREEMENT TO SEL L DATED 11/01/2008 BY SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF RS.85,00,000 PER ACRE, JUST TO ALLURE AND ATTRACT THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS, HOWEV ER THERE IS IN NOTHING CONTRARY TO THE FACT THAT IN PURSUANCE TO AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 11/01/2008 AND GPA DATED 04/04/2008, N O SUBSEQUENT SALE DEEDS HAVE BEEN EXECUTED BY THE LAND O WNERS IN THE FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND/OR OTHER PERSONS THROUG H ASSEEEE AND NO PAYMENT HAS BEEN PAID/RECEIVED BY THE PA RTIES TO THE AGREEMENT TO SELL, WHICH GOES TO SHOW THAT THE A GREEMENT 7 ITA NO.205/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2008-09) SH. RANDHIR SINGH VS. DCIT TO SELL DATED 11/01/2008 HAS NOT BEEN MATERIALIZED AS THE DATE OF FINALIZATION TO THE AGREEMENT WAS FIXED UP TO 12 /01/2009. EVEN THERE IS NO CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 11/01/2008 AND IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 04/04/2008 STANDS REV OKED BY REVOCATION DEED DATED 21/10/2009 REGISTERED WITH JOIN T SUB- REGISTRAR NOORMAHAL, PUNJAB. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DEMONSTRATED THE FACT THAT AS PER REVENUE CASE, THE LAND OWNERS ARE STILL OWNERS OF THE LAND TO THE TUNE OF 21 KANALS AND 18 MARLAS OUT OF 48 KANALS AGAINST WHICH THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE LAND OWNERS. IN THI S REGARD TWO PAPERS DATED 07.06.2017 SHOWING OWNERSHIP OF LAND IN THE NAME OF SH. AMARJIT SINGH AND SH. JAGPAL SIN GH WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH DULY REFLECTS IN PARA NO . 5.2 OF ITS ORDER. FURTHER AS PER DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD, THE L AND OWNERS HAVING SOLD THE LAND 14 KANALS 7.5 MARLAS FROM 10/02/2011 TO 13/07/2012 THROUGH SH. RAVINDER KUMAR AND SH. PUNIT KUMAR (POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDERS), THEREFORE F ROM THE DOCUMENTS SUCH AS REGISTERED SALE DEEDS AND FARAD JAMABAN DI, IT GOES TO SHOW THAT MAXIMUM PART (21 KANALS AND 18 MARLAS + 14 KANALS 7.5 MARLAS = 40 KANALS AND 6 MARLAS ) OF THE PROPERTY (48 KANALS) AS MENTIONED IN AGREEMENT TO SELL, IS EITHER STILL IN T HE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND OWNERS OR HAVING BEEN SOLD BY THEM THROUG H DIFFERENT PERSONS BUT NOT THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL SUCH AS ANY SALE DEED EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE LAN D OWNERS AND/OR ANY DOCUMENT EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF ANY PROSPECTIVE BUYERS/PERSONS AND/OR ANY DOCUMENT ON THE BA SIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ANY CASE WAS/IS 8 ITA NO.205/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2008-09) SH. RANDHIR SINGH VS. DCIT INVOLVED IN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION FOR ITS SALE AND/ OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSES. THEREFORE, ON THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN HAND AND THE ANALYZATIONS MADE ABOVE, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE TRANSACTION UNDER CHAL LENGE IN REAL SENSE WAS NEVER MATERIALIZED AS THE AGREEMENT TO SE LL DATED 11/01/2008 AND GPA DATED 01/04/2008 SEEMS TO BE SHAM DOCUMENTS, THEREFORE WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND OUT ANY JUSTIFICATION AND/OR CORROBORATE MATERIAL TO SUSTAI N THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A), HENCE THE S AME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 5. NOW COMING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.6,40,000/- WH ICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID ADDITION HAS B EEN MADE BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH HIM TO INVEST IN PURCHA SE OF PROPERTY AS PER BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH, 2006 AND 31 ST MARCH, 2007 AND CASH FLOW FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HAVING PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION HAD TAK EN INTO CONSIDERATION THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEA R ENDING 31 ST MARCH, 2007 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.6,46,700/- AND OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS.4,30,000/- APPROXIMATELY AND THE REFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED NET INCOME OF RS.2,16,875/- ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT IF THE HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO CONSIDERED AT A MINIMUM LEVEL OF RS.10,0 00/- 9 ITA NO.205/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2008-09) SH. RANDHIR SINGH VS. DCIT TO 15,000/- PER MONTH, THEN THE ASSESSEE IS LEFT WITH VE RY MINIMAL SURPLUS TO GIVE THE ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF PRO PERTY, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER GIVEN A BENEFIT OF RS.91,5 50/- OUT OF TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS.7,31,550/-. THE SAID ADD ITION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) JUST ON THE REASON THAT NO BALANCE SHEET WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF THE INCOME AND THERE IS NO DOCUMENT OF PROOF CO-RELATING RE GARDING PAYMENT OF ADVANCE IN EARLIER YEAR. HAVING PERUSED THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS ON 31/03/2007 AND 31/03/2008. IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS ON 31/0 3/2007 THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE AMOUNT OF RS.6,40,000/- AS ADVAN CE FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AS ASSETS AND RS.24,302/- AS CASH IN HAND AND RS.2,16,875 AS INCOME. FURTHER AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2008 HAS SHOWN RS.1,42,688/- AS CASH IN HANDS AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,40,632/- AS NET INCOME. AS PER REVENUE DEPARTMENT , THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED TWO PROPERTIES FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.6,05,500/- AND RS. 1,17,500/- ON DATED I ST MARCH, 2007 AND 23/07/2007 RESPECTIVELY. FROM THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS 31 ST MARCH, 2007 IT CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD THE A MOUNT OF RS.6,40,000/- AS ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND RS.24,302/- AS CASH IN HAND. FURTHER AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2008 IN 2007-08, THE ASSESSEE HAD RS.1,42,688/- AS CASH IN HAND AN D RS.1,80,580/- AS ADVANCE AGAINST CONTRACT. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE HAD NO MEANS TO PAY THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 6,40,000/- FOR PURCHASE OF THE SAID PROPERTIES, HENCE, THE ADDITION U/S 69 OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,40,0 00/- IS UNSUSTAINABLE AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 10 ITA NO.205/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2008-09) SH. RANDHIR SINGH VS. DCIT 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ST ANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 22.07.2019. SD/- SD/- ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER DATED: 22.07.2019 /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) SH. SH. RANDHIR SINGH, VILL. MALUPUR, SHAHKOT AND 193, SANJAY GANDHI MARKET, CIVIL LINES, JALANDHAR. (2) THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR (3) THE CIT(A)-1, JALANDHAR (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER