SHRI GURDEV SINGH , HOSHIARPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, HOSHIARPUR

ITA 212/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7104 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHAWANI SHANKAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 56(2)(vii)(b); 147; 148; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.212/ASR./2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2010-11 SH. GURDEV SINGH, C/O SH. DINESH SARNA, ADV., MODEL TOWN ROAD, JALANDHAR VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HOSHIARPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. ACTPB6603K ASSESSEE BY : SH. ASHRAY SARNA, CA REVENUE BY : SH. BHAWAN I SHANKAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.01.2019 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-1, JALANDHAR. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L: 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN FRAMING THE IMPU GNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3)/147 AND WITHOUT COMPLYI NG WITH THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS U/S 147 AS ENVISAGED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 46,50,000/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IGNORING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS MER ELY A ITA NO. 212/ASR./2018 GURDEV SINGH 2 POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND NOT THE OWNER OF THE S AID PLOT. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, MODI FY, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 3. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEA L RELATES TO THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.46,50,000/- MADE BY THE AO. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO INITI ATED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HE REINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN ALREADY FILED ON 19.01.2011 BE TREATED AS FI LED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE AO NOTICED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IN THE CASE OF ONE SH. DEEPAK PAL SINGH, PIPLANWALA (HOSHIARPUR), IT WAS NOTICED THAT AS PER POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 19.03.2010 EXECUTED BY SMT. HARSHARAN KAUR, W/O LATE SH. GURBA KSH SINGH S/O SH. PURAN SINGH, SAGRAN MOHALLA, ADAMPUR REGISTERED IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR, THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED FULL RIGHTS IN RES PECT OF A PLOT SITUATED IN VILLAGE-KHAWASPUR TEHSIL AND DISTT. HOS HIARPUR REGISTERED UNDISPUTEDLY WITHOUT ANY MONETARY CONSID ERATION. THIS FACT WAS CONFIRMED IN THE STATEMENT DATED 18.02.201 4 RECORDED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF SH. DEEPAK PAL SINGH. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT IT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE ASSES SEE THAT HE WAS NOT RELATED TO SMT. HARSHARAN KAUR AND THE PLOT ARE A WHICH WAS INADVERTENTLY SHOWN AS 5M 15 SQ FT. IN THE REASONS RECORDED WAS ACTUALLY 2 KANAL 6 MARLAS. THE AO WAS OF THE VIE W THAT THE ITA NO. 212/ASR./2018 GURDEV SINGH 3 VALUE OF THE SAID PLOT EQUAL TO STAMP DUTY VALUE @ RS.1 LAC PER MARLA WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASS ESSEE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES U/S 56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT. T HE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.46,50,000/- WHICH WAS EQUIVALENT TO THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DOE S NOT GIVE OWNERSHIP RIGHTS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE DOCUM ENT REFERRED TO AND RELIED UPON TO INFER TRANSFER OF THE PLOT WAS N OTHING BUT THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE LADY OWNER IN ASS ESSEES FAVOUR. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN COMMON PARLANCE, I T IS WELL KNOWN THAT A POWER OF ATTORNEY ONLY AUTHORIZED ITS HOLDER TO DEAL WITH THE PROPERTY AS PER THE WISHES OF THE PRINCIPAL/OWNER, LAID OUT IN ATTORNEY EXECUTED AND THE ATTORNEY HOLDER DOES NOT BECOME THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, BY VIRTUE OF THE ATTORNEY EX ECUTED IN HIS FAVOUR. THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS JANAK RAJ CHA UHAN REPORTED AT (2006) 102 TTJ 0297. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED BY T HE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, FOR THE COST OF RE PETITION, THE SAME IS NOT REPRODUCED HEREIN. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) SUMMARIZED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AT PAGE NO. 14 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: 1. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THA T, SMT. HARSHARAN KAUR IS THE RECORDED OWNER OF THE LAND IN QUESTION. ITA NO. 212/ASR./2018 GURDEV SINGH 4 2. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD SUGGESTING THAT ANY CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSE TO SMT. HARSHARAN KAUR FOR EXECUTING POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THERE IS ALSO NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT ANY CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY SMT. HARSHARAN K AUR FOR EXECUTING POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE. 4. THE TERMS OF POWER OF ATTORNEY CLEARLY SHOWS THE PROPERTY RIGHTS HAVE NOT BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE PO WER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. 5. THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGH T ON RECORD BY LD. AO SHOWING THAT ASSESSE PURCHASED LAN D FROM SMT. HARSHARAN KAUR. 6. THERE WAS NO MATERIAL BEFORE THE LD. AO WHICH CO ULD LED TO CONCLUSION THAT THE POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAV OUR OF ASSESSEE WAS A DEVICE TO CAMOUFLAGE ACTIVITIES AND TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN GENER AL POWER OF ATTORNEY BY MRS. HARSHARAN KAUR WHICH WAS DULY REGI STERED WITH THE REGISTRAR ON 19.03.2010 AND THAT VIDE THIS GENE RAL POWER OF ATTORNEY, MRS. HARSHARAN KAUR HAD GIVEN GENERAL POW ER TO ONE SH. KUNDAN SINGH FOR 19 MARLAS AND TO THE ASSESSEE FO R 2 KANAL 13 MARLAS AND THE ASSESSEE VIDE THE SAID POWER OF ATTO RNEY ACQUIRED MANY RIGHTS INCLUDING RIGHT TO SELL AND THAT THE AS SESSEE SOLD A PLOT OF LAND MEASURING 5 MARLA 15 SQ. FT. TO ONE SH. DEE PAK PAL SINGH WHO FURTHER CONSTRUCTED HOUSE THEREON AND SOLD THE SAME TO ONE SH. AMIT KUMAR FOR RS.14,00,000/-. ITA NO. 212/ASR./2018 GURDEV SINGH 5 8. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.46,50,000/- BY OBSERVI NG AS UNDER: FROM THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD, IT IS EVIDENT TH AT SH. HARSHARAN KAUR IS NOT BLOOD RELATION OR RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN POWER OF ATTORNEY THROUGH ON E SH. RANJEET SINGH. THE ADDRESS OF SH. RANJEET SINGH WAS NOT KNO WN TO THE ASSESSEE. VIDE THIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY THE A SSESSEE WAS NOT ALONE WHO WAS GIVEN POWER OF ATTORNEY. THE PLOT WAS SPECIFICALLY GIVEN TO TWO PERSONS ONE SH. KUNDAN SI NGH AND SH. GURDEV SINGH, THE ASSESSEE. THE GENERAL POWER OF AT TORNEY WHICH INCLUDED THE POWER TO FURTHER SELL WAS DULY REGISTE RED WITH THE JOINT SUB-REGISTRAR, AADAMPUR. THE ASSESSEE USING THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HA S FURTHER SOLD A PART OF THE LAND. FROM THE WHOLE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION . THE SAID GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HAS NOT BEEN REVOKED TILL DATE. IN THE REVENUE RECORDS, AS PER DETAILS PROVIDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THE LAND IS SHOWN IN THE NAME OF SMT. HARSHARAN KAUR. B UT, THE SUBSEQUENT SALE OF THE PLOT BEING MADE BY THE ASSES SEE SHOWS THAT HE IS USING AND APPROPRIATING THE PROPERTY AS ITS O WN, SO MUCH HE IS FURTHER SELLING THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INVOLVED PROVISIONS OF SEC. 56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 46,50,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD, THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM TO ACQ UIRE THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY OF THE PROPERTY. THEREFOR E, ASSESSMENT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 46,50,000/- U/S SEC. 56(2)(VII) (B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UPH ELD. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 IS DISMISSED. 9. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW A ND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SMT. HARSHARAN KAUR WAS 73 YEARS OLD LADY AT THE RE LEVANT TIME. THEREFORE, SHE GAVE POWER OF ATTORNEY TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE SHE CO ULD NOT MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY, THE ASSESSEE GAVE THE ATTORNEY T O SH. DEEPAK PAL SINGH ON ITA NO. 212/ASR./2018 GURDEV SINGH 6 07.01.2011 AS AN ATTORNEY HOLDER ONLY AND NOT AS OW NER OF THE CONCERNED PROPERTY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AP POINTED AS AN ATTORNEY TO THE PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF SMT. HARSHARAN KAUR AND RECEI VED PROPERTY FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN A YEAR AND SUBSEQUENTLY SH. DEEPAK PAL SINGH WAS APPOINTED AS AN ATTORNEY HOLDER. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E AO U/S 56(2)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED PROPE RTY WITHOUT CONSIDERATION, SO STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTIF IED BECAUSE THE BASIC CONDITIONS OF THE SAID SECTION WERE NOT FULFILLED A S THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SOLD ANY PROPERTY AND DID NOT RECEIVE PROPERTY BUT WAS M ADE JUST AN ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND NO INVESTMENT WAS M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AN D SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED O N THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: SURAJ LAMP & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. VS STATE OF HARYAN A 340 ITR 001 (SC) ACIT VS JANKA RAJ CHAUHAN (2006) 102 TTJ 297 (ASR.) GUNPREET SINGH VS ITO, WARD-1(5), HARYANA IN ITA NO . 2731/DEL/2018, ORDER DATED 27.09.2018 (DEL. ITAT) 10. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR STRONGLY S UPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY BY SMT. HARSHARAN KAUR TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS NOT TR ANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AT ANY POINT OF TIME AND LATER ON THE POWE R OF ATTORNEY WAS GIVEN TO ONE SH. DEEPAK PAL SINGH. ITA NO. 212/ASR./2018 GURDEV SINGH 7 12. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SURAJ LAMP & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. VS STATE OF HARYANA IN SLP(C) NO. 13917 OF 2009 DATED 11.10.2011 (SUPRA) THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD IN PARAS 13 & 18 AS UNDER: 13. A POWER OF ATTORNEY IS NOT AN INSTRUMENT OF TR ANSFER IN REGARD TO ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN AN IMMOVA BLE PROPERTY. THE POWER OF ATTORNEY IS CREATION OF AN AGENCY WHEREBY THE GRANTOR AUTHORIZES THE GRANTEE TO DO THE ACTS SPECIFIED THE REIN, ON BEHALF OF GRANTOR, WHICH WHEN EXECUTED WILL BE BINDING ON THE GRANTOR AS IF DONE BY HIM (SEE SECTION 1A AND SECTION 2 OF THE PO WERS OF ATTORNEY ACT, 1882). IT IS REVOCABLE: OR TERMINABLE AT ANY T IME UNLESS IT IS MADE IRREVOCABLE IN A MANNER KNOWN TO LAW. EVEN AN IRREVOCABLE ATTORNEY DOES NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF TRANSFERRING T ITLE TO THE GRANTEE. IN STATE OF RAJASTHAN V/S. BASANT NEHATA - 2005 (12 ) SCC 77, THIS COURT HELD : 'A GRANT OF POWER OF ATTORNEY IS ESSENTIALLY GOVERN ED BY CHAPTER X OF THE CONTRACT ACT. BY REASON OF A DEED OF POWER OF ATTORNEY, AN AGENT IS FORMALLY APPOINTED TO ACT FOR THE PRINC IPAL IN ONE TRANSACTION OR A SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS OR TO MANAG E THE AFFAIRS OF THE PRINCIPAL GENERALLY CONFERRING NECESSARY AUTHOR ITY UPON ANOTHER PERSON. A DEED OF POWER OF ATTORNEY IS EXEC UTED BY THE PRINCIPAL IN FAVOUR OF THE AGENT. THE AGENT DERIVES A RIGHT TO USE HIS NAME AND ALL ACTS, DEEDS AND THINGS DONE BY HIM AND SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN THE SAID DEED, THE SAME SHALL BE READ AS IF DONE BY THE DONOR. A POWER OF ATTORNEY I S, AS IS WELL KNOWN, A DOCUMENT OF CONVENIENCE. EXECUTION OF A POWER OF ATTORNEY IN TERMS OF THE PR OVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT ACT AS ALSO THE POWERS-OF-ATTORNEY ACT IS VALID. A POWER OF ATTORNEY, WE HAVE NOTICED HEREINBEFORE, IS EXECUTED BY THE DONOR SO AS TO ENABLE THE DONEE TO ACT ON HIS B EHALF. EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE POWER OF ATTORNEY IS COUPLED WITH IN TEREST, IT IS REVOCABLE. THE DONEE IN EXERCISE OF HIS POWER UNDER SUCH POWER OF ATTORNEY ONLY ACTS IN PLACE OF THE DONOR SUBJECT OF COURSE TO THE POWERS GRANTED TO HIM BY REASON THEREOF. HE CANNOT USE THE POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT. HE ACTS IN A FIDUCIARY CAPACITY. ANY ACT OF INFIDELITY OR BREACH OF TRUST IS A MATTER BETWEEN THE DONOR AND THE DONEE.' ITA NO. 212/ASR./2018 GURDEV SINGH 8 AN ATTORNEY HOLDER MAY HOWEVER EXECUTE A DEED OF CO NVEYANCE IN EXERCISE OF THE POWER GRANTED UNDER THE POWER OF AT TORNEY AND CONVEY TITLE ON BEHALF OF THE GRANTOR. ------------------- ------------------- 18. WE HAVE MERELY DRAWN ATTENTION TO AND REITERATE D THE WELL- SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT SA/GPA/WILL TRANSACTION S ARE NOT 'TRANSFERS' OR 'SALES' AND THAT SUCH TRANSACTIONS C ANNOT BE TREATED AS COMPLETED TRANSFERS OR CONVEYANCES. THEY CAN CON TINUE TO BE TREATED AS EXISTING AGREEMENT OF SALE. NOTHING PREV ENTS AFFECTED PARTIES FROM GETTING REGISTERED DEEDS OF CONVEYANCE TO COMPLETE THEIR TITLE. THE SAID 'SA/GPA/WILL TRANSACTIONS' MA Y ALSO BE USED TO OBTAIN SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR TO DEFEND PO SSESSION UNDER SECTION 53A OF TP ACT. IF THEY ARE ENTERED BE FORE THIS DAY, THEY MAY BE RELIED UPON TO APPLY FOR REGULARIZATION OF ALLOTMENTS/LEASES BY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES. WE MA KE IT CLEAR THAT IF THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO 'SA/GPA/WILL TRAN SACTIONS' HAS BEEN ACCEPTED ACTED UPON BY DDA OR OTHER DEVELOPMEN TAL AUTHORITIES OR BY THE MUNICIPAL OR REVENUE AUTHORIT IES TO EFFECT MUTATION, THEY NEED NOT BE DISTURBED, MERELY ON ACC OUNT OF THIS DECISION. 13. SO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONLY ON THIS BASIS TH AT A GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY SMT. HARSHARAN KAUR TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE PROPE RTY AND WAS LIABLE TO PAY THE TAX ON THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY. 14. A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINAT E BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS JANAK RAJ CHAUHAN (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BE EN HELD AS UNDER: 6.5 ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. THE POA WOULD NOT GIVE RIGHT TO THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CA PACITY TO ACQUIRE ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY UNLESS THE FACTS ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT POA WAS SUBJECT TO CONSIDERA TION. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY H IS ESTIMATE OF ITA NO. 212/ASR./2018 GURDEV SINGH 9 INCOME. MERE RECOVERY OF POA FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENOUGH TO ESTIMATE INCOME AGAINST THE ASSESS EE. THE LAW IS CLEAR THAT POA IS MEANT FOR DOING THE CERTAIN ACTS ON BEHALF OF THE PRINCIPAL. IT IS ALSO SUBJECT-MATTER OF CANCELLATIO N. ONLY CERTAIN ACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN AUTHORISED BY THE POA COULD BE EXER CISED. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DRAWING ADVE RSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THAT ON THE BASIS OF RECOVERY OF POA THE ASSESSEE EARNED THE INCOME. THERE IS NO MERIT IN TH E APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED ON THIS GROUND. 15. SO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERR ED TO ORDER, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CI T(A) IS DELETED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17/01/2019) SD/- SD/- (RAVISH SOOD) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER V ICE PRESIDENT DATED: 17/01/2019 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR