I.T.O.(AO), Ward-1(4), Aligarh V. Alka Locks Pvt. Ltd., Aligarh

ITA 216/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0393 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-05-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Assessment record; Onus to prove
• Section: 133(6)

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. 216 AGRA/ 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 INCOME TAX OFFICER (AO) VS. ALKA LOCKS PVT. LT D. WARD-1(4), 19/37, JAINPURI, ALIGARH ALIGARH (PAN AABCA1510B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DEEPENDRA MOHAN, C.A. DATE OF HEARING : 15.05.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.05.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) GHAZIABAD DATED 14.03.2011 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.75,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPL ICATION MONEY IGNORING THE SANCTION LETTER DATED 17.12.2005 OF UN ION BANK OF INDIA, ALIGARH ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD TE RMS AND CONDITIONS AT POINT NO. 17 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CATE GORICALLY MENTIONED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.75,00,000/- TO BE CON VERTED INTO EQUITY BY DECEMBER, 2005. ITA NO.216/AGRA/2011 A.Y.2006-07 2 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AN ON FCTS IN DE LETING THE ADDITION OF RS.21,38,194/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED PROFIT BY INFLATING COST OF OPENING STO CK AND THERE WAS VARIATION IN THE FIGURES OF OPENING STOCK AS ON 01. 04.2005 (A.Y.2006- 07) AND CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31.03.2005 (A.Y.2005-06 ). 2. BRIEFLY FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSS OF RS.1,17,550/-. ASSESSEE IS A MANU FACTURER AND TRADER OF SUIT CASE LOCKS ACCESSORIES AND BRASS STATUTES. DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHANGED ITS BANK FROM M/S J & K BANK, ALIGARH TO M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA, ALIGARH. THE A.O. ASCERTAINED THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS REPORTED BY THE BANK THAT ON CHANGING OF THE BANK ALL THE LIABILITIES AND OUTSTANDING IN THEIR BANK OF THIS COMPANY HAVE BEEN PAID BY M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE COPY OF COLLATERAL GUARANT EE MORTGAGED WITH THE UNION BANK OF INDIA WAS OBTAINED BY A.O. ON PERUSAL OF TH E SAID BANK MORTGAGED DOCUMENTS REVEALED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED PEND ING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WORTH OF RS.75 LACS IN THE DOCUMENT FILED WITH THE BANK. HOWEVER, THIS AMOUNT OF RS.75,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS NEITHER DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET NOR IN OTHER DOCUMENTS FILED W ITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE SOURCE AND DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE, T HEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.75,00,000/- WAS MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, CONSI DERING IT TO BE UNDISCLOSED ITA NO.216/AGRA/2011 A.Y.2006-07 3 AMOUNT. FURTHER IT WAS FOUND FROM THE DOCUMENTS FIL ED IN THE BANK FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 I.E. PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS DISCLOSED A CLOSING BALANCE OF RS.3,35,69,647/- ON 31.03.2005 IN THE AU DITED RETURN FILED WITH THE BANK WHEREAS IN THE AUDITED RETURN FILED WITH THE I NCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED OPENING BALANCE OF RS.4,05,1 5,880/-AS ON 01.04.2005 INSTEAD OF RS.3,35,69,647/- AS CLOSING BALANCE AS O N 31.03.2005 DISCLOSED TO THE BANK. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE MAINTAINED TW O SETS OF AUDITED BALANCE SHEET I.E. FILED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BANK LOAN AND O THER FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, IN THIS WAY, TO DEFRAUD THE EXCHEQU ER TO GRAB MORE LOAN FROM THE BANK. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY REJECTED BOOK RESULT UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A NE T PROFIT OF 7.5% IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AS PE R BALANCE SHEET FILED WITH THE BANK WHEREAS IN THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSES SEE HAS SHOWN A NET PROFIT OF 0.53% AS DISCLOSED TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT. IT WAS CO NSIDERED AS VAST DIFFERENCE, THEREFORE, PROFIT RATE OF 7.5% ON THE TOTAL TURNOVE R DISCLOSED TO THE BANK IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS APPLIED AND ADDITION OF RS.21,38,194/- WAS MADE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE I.T. ACT. ITA NO.216/AGRA/2011 A.Y.2006-07 4 3. BOTH THE ADDITIONS WERE CHALLENGED BEFORE LEARNE D CIT(A) .THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH IS INCORPOR ATED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE BRIEFLY EXPLAINED THAT BOTH THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF MERE SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND ON HYPOTHETICAL OBSERVATIONS. THE MATERIAL USED IN FRAMING OF THE ASSESSMENT DID NOT FORM PART OF THE RECORDS AND WERE NEVER CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDI TION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE STRENGTH OF THE DOCUMENTS WHICH DID NOT RELATE TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY FRE SH SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. IT WAS SIMPLY PROJEC TION AND ESTIMATION OF THE COMPANY WORKING OUT FUTURE REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOP MENT OF THE COMPANY. BOTH THE ADDITIONS ARE, THEREFORE, NOT JUSTIFIED. THE A. O. MADE ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS SOME DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE WITH THE BANK WHICH HAVE N EVER BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE NEVER FILED ANY BALANCE SHEET WITH THE BANK IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. WHATEVER BALANCE SHEE T WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE BANK WAS DISCLOSING ALLEGED MONEY OF RS.75,00,000/- PENDING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FOR OBTAINING LOAN WHICH WAS IN REFERENCE TO FINANCIAL YEARS ENDING 31.03.2005 CANNOT BE USED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE OPENING AND CLOS ING BALANCES IN THE RETURN OF ITA NO.216/AGRA/2011 A.Y.2006-07 5 INCOME FILED WITH THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND BALANC E SHEET OF SOME EARLIER YEAR HAS BEEN CONSIDERED WHICH CANNOT BE USED IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 4. LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE AND PERUSAL OF THE RECORD DELETED BOTH THE ADDITIONS. THIS FINDING S IN THE APPELLATE ORDER FROM PARAS 5 TO 6 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 5. AFTER HAVING CAREFULLY CONSIDERED APPELLANTS S UBMISSION AND ALSO THE FACTS BROUGHT OUT BY THE AO IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER, MY CONCLUSIONS/OBSERVATIONS ARE AS UNDER:- 5.1 REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.75,00,000/- 5.1.1 FROM THE PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS, IT IS FOUND CORRECT THAT THE AO NEVER CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE; THE MATERIAL COLLECTED FROM THE BANK, AND TO THAT EXTENT, AO IS GUILTY INFORMATION BEHIND THE APPELLANTS BACK. 5.1.2 IN FACT, FROM CAREFUL PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT R ECORDS, I FIND THAT NO SUCH BALANCE SHEET WAS SUBMITTED BY THE BANK TO AO. THE AO DID NOT ASK U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT UBI, VIDE LETTER DATED 22.11.2008 FURNISHED THE SAME BALANCE-SHEET OF F.Y. 2005-06, AS HAS BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME. WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT AO OBTAINED SUCH WRONG BALANC E-SHEET, FROM SOME OTHER SOURCE, WHICH IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECORDS. IN ANY CASE APPELLANT HAS ACCEPTED TO HAVE FILED SUCH WRO NG OR INFLATED BALANCE-SHEET TO THE BANK, AND, HENCE, IT CAN BE US ED BY THE AO. HOWEVER, FROM WHATEVER SOURCE, AO OBTAINED SUCH BA LANCE- SHEET, HE SHOULD HAVE CONFRONTED THE APPELLANT WITH SUCH INFORMATION. ITA NO.216/AGRA/2011 A.Y.2006-07 6 5.1.3 BUT, MORE IMPORTANTLY, I FIND THAT THE PARTI CULAR DOCUMENT/BALANCE-SHEET, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ADVER SE CONCLUSION REGARDING UNEXPLAINED CREDIT (BY WAY OF SHARE APPLI CATION MONEY), HAS BEEN MADE BY AO; ACTUALLY DOES NOT PERTAIN TO T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE SAID BALANCE SHEET PERTAINS TO L AST F.Y. I.E. F.Y. 2004-05. THIS FACT CAN BE DEDUCTED EVEN BY AOS REFERENCE T O SUCH DOCUMENTS IN PARA 3 OF PAGE 2 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHERE AO MENTIONS THAT IT IS ALSO SEEN FROM THE DOCUMENTS FILED IN THE BANK FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THAT THERE THE ASS ESSEE HAS DISCLOSED A CLOSING BALANCE OF RS.3,35,69,647/- AS ON 31.03.2005 IN THE AUDITED RETURN FILED WITH BANK.. IT IS CLEA R, THUS, THAT AO HAS BASED THE ADDITION OF RS.75,00,000/- ON THE BAL ANCE-SHEET FILED WITH THE BANK PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2005-06. IN THE AU DITED B/S OF A.Y. 2005-06 FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT, HOWEVER, THERE I S NO SUCH ENTRY OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.75,00,000/-. FOR A. Y. 2006-07 I.E. THE A.Y. UNDER CONSIDERATION, NEITHER ANY B/S WAS F OUND FROM THE BANK, NOR THERE IS ANY SUCH ENTRY IN THE AUDITED B/ S FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2006-07. THE CONCLUSION IS OBVIOUS, FIRSTLY, THE COPY OF BA LANCE-SHEET FILED WITH THE BANK MAY NOT BE REFLECTING CORRECT P ICTURE AT ALL; RATHER MAY BE JUST INFLATING CAPITAL FOR LOAN PURPOSES. BUT, SECONDLY AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION OF RS.75 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF ENTRY REGARDING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, THE AO SHOULD HAVE AND STILL CAN, TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION THE A.Y., IN WHICH SUCH SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WERE CREDITED IN APPELLANTS BOOK S, IF AT ALL. SUCH A.Y. CAN, AT THE BEST, BE A.Y. 2005-06. BUT, THERE IS NO BASIS, AT ALL, FOR MAKING ADDITION OF RS.75,00,000/- IN THE PRESENT A. Y. THIS ADDITION OF RS.75,00,000/- IS, THUS, DELETED. 5.2 REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.21,38,194/-: ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.21,38,194/- ALSO, T HE ABOVE DISCUSSION IS RELEVANT. HENCE AGAIN, THE BOOK RESUL TS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN REJECTED, ONLY ON GROUND THAT CLOSING BAL ANCE SHOWN AS ON31.03.2005 OF RS.3,35,69,647/- (AS APPEARING IN B ALANCE SHEET WITH THE BANK FOR A.Y. 2005-06) DOES NOT TALLY WITH THE FIGURE OF OPENING ITA NO.216/AGRA/2011 A.Y.2006-07 7 BALANCE OF RS.4,05,15,880/- AS ON 01.04.2005, AS AP PEARING IN THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET ON I. TAX RECORD, FOR A.Y. 20 06-07. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM BANK WERE NEITHER CONFRONTED TO THE APPELLANT, NOR HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED TO BE REFLECTING CORRECT AFFAIRS. IN FACT, ALL THE INDICA TIONS ARE THAT SUCH BALANCE SHEET, FURNISHED TO THE BANK, MAY HAVE SOME ARTIFICIAL ENTRIES. IN ANY CASE, ANY SUCH ACTION CAN, IF AT ALL, BE TAK EN FOR A.Y. 2005-06 ONLY, AFTER IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATION. THERE IS, THUS, NO RATIONAL FOR AO TO ADOPT 7.5% N P AS THE YARDSTICK, ESPECIALLY WHEN, AUDITED ACCOUNTS FILED WITH RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y.2005-06, REFLECT, AS PER AOS OWN AD MISSION, AN NP OF 0.53%. AT THE MOST, THE AO COULD HAVE COMPARED THE N.P. R ATE OF THIS YEAR (0.43%) TO N.P. OF (0.53%) LAST YEAR AND COULD HAVE ASKED ASSESSEE TO FILE SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION, FOR SUCH A FALL IN N.P. BUT, THERE TOO, BEFORE REJECTING THE BOOKS RESULTS, VERI FICATIONS INTO PURCHASES OR SALES OR EXPENSES MUST BE DONE. WITHOU T MAKING ANY SUCH VERIFICATION AND WITHOUT FINDING ANY CONCRETE DEFECTS IN BOOKS AND ACCOUNTS, THE REJECTION OF BOOKS RESULTS CAN BE SUSTAINED, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE FINANCIAL CRISIS IS VISIBLE FRO M THE RECORDS, WHICH IS LIKELY TO DEEPEN THE FINANCIAL LOSS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE AOS ACTION OF REJECTING BOO KS U/S 145(3) AND MAKING A HIGH-PITCHED ARBITRARY ADDITION OF RS. 21,38,194/-IS NEGATED/DELETED. 6 IN EFFECT, BOTH THE ADDITIONS ARE DELETED AND AP PEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. LEARNED D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. A ND REFERRED TO LETTER OF UNION BANK OF INDIA DATED 17.12.2005 WHICH IS WITH REGARD TO SANCTION OF LIMITS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH AT S.NO.17 THE B ANKER HAS MENTIONED SHARE ITA NO.216/AGRA/2011 A.Y.2006-07 8 APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.75,00,000/- TO BE CONVERTED INTO EQUITY BY DECEMBER, 2005. THE LEARNED D.R., THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT A.O. WA S JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED D. R. ALSO PRODUCED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME FILED THE BALANCE SHEET ENDING 31.03.2006 COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT P AGE NO. 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RE FERRED TO PAGE NO. 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS BALANCE SHEET ENDING 31.03.2006 IS FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME IN WHICH NO SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE OPENING OR C LOSING BALANCE. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE THE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF KISHINCHAND CHELLARAM VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X 125 ITR 713 (SC) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD BURDEN OF PROOF WAS ON THE DEPAR TMENT TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT BELONGED TO ASSESSEE LETTERS OF MANAGER, IN THE ABSENCE OF SAME BEING SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE, COULD NOT BE USED AGAINST ASSESSEEMANAGER ALSO NOT EXAMINED BY THE DEPARTMENTTHERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FO R THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT BELONGED TO ASSESSEE. ITA NO.216/AGRA/2011 A.Y.2006-07 9 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD. LEARNED D.R. PRODUCED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD IN WHICH THE RETURN OF INCOME IS SUPPORTED BY THE BALANCE SHEET ENDING 31.03.2006 COPY OF WHICH IS FI LED AT PAGE NO. 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH, IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER A PPEAL ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.75,00,00 0/-. THERE IS ALSO NO DIFFERENCE IN THE OPENING OR CLOSING BALANCES. IT A PPEARS THAT THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF SOME BALANCE SHEET OBTAINED FROM HIS OWN SOURCE FROM THE BANK AND MADE BOTH THE ABOVE ADDITION. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON PERU SAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD FOUND THAT THE ALLEGED BALANCE SHEET USED BY THE A. O. AGAINST THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER APPEAL. THE S AID BALANCE SHEET PERTAINS TO THE LAST F.Y.2004-05 RELEVANT TO PRECEDING A.Y. 200 5-06. SUCH DOCUMENTS OBTAINED BY A.O. FROM HIS OWN SOURCE HAVE NOT BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AT ASSESSMENT STAGE. THEREFORE, SUCH DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE USED IN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. SAME VIEW HAS ALSO TAKEN IN THE CASE OF KISHINCHAND CHELLARAM (SUPRA). WHEN THE ALLEGED BALANCE SHEET USED BY A.O . OF PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AGAINST THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE AS SESSMENT ORDER UNDER APPEAL AND WAS ALSO NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE, NO ADDITIO N CAN BE MADE. THE DETAILS ON SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.75,00,000/- CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.216/AGRA/2011 A.Y.2006-07 10 AND NO SUCH ADDITION COULD BE SUSTAINED. LEARNED CI T(A) ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION BECAUSE SUCH ALLEGED BALANCE SHEET OBTAINED FROM THE BANK AT THE BEST CO ULD BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN PRECEDING A.Y. 2005-06 BUT NOT IN THE A SSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. FURTHER ON THE SAME BASIS THE A.O. CANNOT REJECT BO OKS RESULT OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CLOSING BALANCES WERE ALSO FOUND FROM THE SAME BALANCE SHEET WHICH DID NOT PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR UNDER APPEAL AND THE SAME WAS ALSO NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED D. R. RELIED UPON LETTER OF THE UNION BANK OF INDIA DATED 17.12.2005 IN WHICH THE B ANK WHILE SANCTIONING THE LIMIT HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE THAT SHARE APPLICAT ION MONEY OF RS.75,00,000/- TO BE CONVERTED INTO EQUITY BY DECEMBER, 2005. THE NAR RATION GIVEN IN THE LETTER OF THE BANK WOULD SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THE ALLEGED BALANCE SHEET OBTAINED FROM THE BANK WAS ONLY A PROJECTED B ALANCE SHEET AND TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN FUTURE. THE MERE FACT THAT IT DID NO T CONTAIN THE EXACT DETAILS, THE A.O. SHOULD HAVE VERIFIED IF ASSESSEE HAS DONE ACTU ALLY THOSE THINGS IN DECEMBER, 2005. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INVESTIGATION ON THIS A SPECT AND THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR UNDER APPEAL DID NOT CONTAIN ANY SUCH SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS75,00 ,000/-, CLEARLY REVEALED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY A.O. ON HYPOTHETICAL ASSUM PTION OF FACT WHICH DID NOT ITA NO.216/AGRA/2011 A.Y.2006-07 11 EXIST. THE CONTENTION OF LEARNED D.R. THAT THE SHAR E APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.75,00,000/- IN FACT CONVERTED HAS NO FORCE AND I S ACCORDINGLY TURNED DOWN. 8. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE AD DITION. 9. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL FAILS AND IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAV NESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AMIT/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY