ACIT, Meerut V. M/s Preeti Verma, New Delhi

ITA 2316/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7303 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 04-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL BAJPAI
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI TANEJA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Additional evidence; Block assessment
• Section: 142(1); 153A; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 2316/DEL/2011 & 2317/D/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 & 2005-06 ACIT VS. PREETI VERMA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, B-42A, GANGOTRI ENCLAVE, MEERUT. ALAKNANDA, GREATER KAILASH-2, NEW DELHI. PAN NO. ACVPV2780R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS. 2318/DEL/2011 TO 2320/D/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 & 2005-06 ACIT VS. PREETI VERMA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, B-42A, GANGOTRI ENCLAVE, MEERUT. ALAKNANDA, GREATER KAILASH-2, NEW DELHI. PAN NO. ACVPV2780R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) & CROSS OBJECTION NOS. 28 TO 30/DEL/2012 (IN ITA NOS.2318, 2316 & 2317/DEL/2011) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04 TO2005-06 PREETI VERMA, VS. ACIT, B-42A, GANGOTRI ENCLAVE, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALAKNANDA, GK-2, MEERUT. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SUNIL BAJPAI, CIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY : SH. ASHWANI TANEJA & SH. SOMIL AG GARWAL, CA ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, J.M. THE FIVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGA INST THE QUANTUM ORDERS OF CIT(A), MEERUT PERTAINING TO 2004-05, 05-06 ASSE SSMENT YEARS AND PENALTY ORDER OF THE CIT(A) PERTAINING TO 2003-04, 04-05, & 05-06 AS SESSMENT YEARS. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTIONS IN ITA 231 6 TO 2318/D/2011 IN 2003-04 TO 2005-06 ASSESSMENT YEARS. THESE FIVE APPEALS ALONG WITH THESE CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE IN 2004-05, 05-06, 03-04, 04-05, & 05-06 ASSESSMENT YEARS. ALL THESE ARE BEING DECID ED BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AS THE ISSUES RAISED THEREIN AR E IDENTICAL. 2. IT WAS A COMMON STAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE R EVENUE THAT THE ARGUMENTS RAISED IN ITA NO. 2316/D/2011 WOULD ADDRESSED THE G ROUNDS IN ITA NO. 2317/D/2011. ITA NOS. 2316 TO 2320/DEL/2011 & CROSS OBJECTION N OS. 28 TO 30/DEL/ 2012 2 FOR READY REFERENCE WE REPRODUCE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA 2316/D/2011 BY WHICH ORDER DATED 22/05/2011 OF CIT( A)-MEERUT PERTAINING TO 2004- 05 ASSESSMENT YEAR IS UNDER CHALLENGE: 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,44,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN CAPITAL ACC OUNT RELYING THE RECONCILED FIGURES OF DEBIT AND CREDIT ENTRIES ON A CCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO F URNISH THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY TO THE SATISF ACTION OF AO AS REQUIRED IN TERMS OF SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 1,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED HOUSEHOLD EXPE NSES SOLELY RELYING ON AN UNSUBSTANTIATED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES HOUS EHOLD EXPENSES WERE MET BY HER MOTHER AND BY HER EX-HUSBAND WHEREAS NO SUCH EVIDENCE WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 25,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED GIFT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE ANY EVIDE NCE WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH GIFT DESPITE THE SPECIFIC OPPOR TUNITY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN DOING SO, THE CIT(A) IGNORED THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF RAJIV TANDON VS. CIT, 294 ITR 219 WHICH CLEARLY LAYS THAT THE CONCEPT OF GENUINENESS OF GIFT WHICH ALSO INCLUDES THE OCCASIO N AND HUMAN PROBABILITIES IN PARTING WITH A SUM AS GIFT IN FAVO UR OF ANOTHER. CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THESE FACTORS WHILE GIVING RELIE F TO THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF THIS ALLEGED GIFT. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS NEEDS TO BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO B E RESOTRED. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WH EN NEED FOR DOING SO MAY ARISE. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEES RESIDENTIAL PREMISES WERE SEARCHED IN PURSUANCE OF WARRANT OF AUTHORIZAT ION ON 22/02/2005. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT SEARCH TOOK PLACE UPON THE UP PAL GROUP. AS A RESULT OF THIS THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS STAYING WITH SHRI SURENDRA UPPAL O N OBTAINING DIVORCE FROM HER HUSBAND WAS ALSO QUESTIONED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE A SSESSEE BE FRIENDED SHRI UPPAL AFTER HER DIVORCE AND SINCE HE WAS A SINGLE HANDEDL Y CONTROLLING THE AFFAIRS OF SENIOR CITIZEN HOME COMPLEX WELFARE SOCIETY AND UPPAL TOWE RS PVT. LTD. ETC. HE ENGAGED THE ASSESSEE AS INTERIOR DECORATOR AND CONSULTANCY SERVICES. 4. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153A THE ASSESSEE DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS. 1,74,000/-. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUE D ALONG WITH NOTICE U/S 142(1) THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO HAVE GIVEN THE FOLLOWING REPLY EXTRACTED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER: THE ASSESSEE WAS DIVORCED IN THE MIDDLE WAS 90S. ON HER DIVORCE SHE STATES TO HAVE RECEIVED HUGE ALUMNI. DETAILS OF SU CH RECEIPTS HAVE NOT BEEN FILED. THE ASSESSEE CAME IN CONTACT WITH SH. SURENDERA UPPAL AND BEFRIENDED WITH HIM. SHRI UPPAL WHO HAS BEEN SINGL EHANDEDLY ITA NOS. 2316 TO 2320/DEL/2011 & CROSS OBJECTION N OS. 28 TO 30/DEL/ 2012 3 CONTROLLING THE AFFAIRS OF SENIOR CITIZEN HOME COMP LEX WELFARE SOCIETY, UPPAL TOWERS PVT. LTD., ETC. ENGAGED THE ASSESSEE F OR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING HER SERVICES AS INTERIOR DECORATOR AND ALSO TOOK CONSULTANCY FOR WHICH SHE HAS BEEN PAID. SHRI UPPAL ALSO PAID FOR THE FLAT AN AMOUNT ABOUT RS. 12.00 LACS IN THE A.Y. 1998-99 WHERE SHE HAS BEEN LIVING SINCE THEN. 5. THE AO PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF RS. 13, 44,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED DIFFERENCE IN OPENING CAPITAL AND RS. 25 LACS IN VI EW OF SERVICES RENDERED TO SHRI SURENDRA UPPAL & RS. 1,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPEN SES MET OUT OF THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY THESE ADDITIONS THE ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY THESE ADDITIONS WERE DELETED. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 5.1 THE RELEVANT FACTS RELATABLE TO THESE ADDITIONS ON WHICH RELIANCE IS PLACED BY THE LD. SR.DR ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FROM THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER: FACTS RELATABLE TO GROUND NO. 1: WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME ASSESSEE FILED BALANCE S HEET, WHICH IS ASSESSEES CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THE OPENING CAPITAL IS SHOWN AT R S. 21,01,936.00 AGAINST THE CLOSING BALANCE OF CAPITAL OF RS. 7,02,084.00. THE ASSESSEE IN HER EXPLANATION FILED ON 12.12.2006 WHILE EXPLAINING THE EXPENDITUR E SHOWED EDUCATION EXPENDITURE OF DAUGHTER AT RS. 1,63,985.00, PAYMENT IN FOREIGN CURRENCY AT RS. 2,00,000.00. SON PURCHASE OF RS. 13,490.00, CASH D EPOSITED IN HSBC AT RS. 3,900, 10 FDRS WITH HSBC OF RS. 49,000.00, 10 FDRS WITH HSBC MORE THAN OF RS. 4,00,000.00, AIR TICKETS THROUGH ASHWA TOURS & TRAVELS OF RS. 25,000.00, DEPOSITED IN POST OFFICE OF RS. 10,000.0 0 DEPOSITED IN POST OFFICE OF RS. 13,000.00, EXPENSES IN EDUCATION OF DAUGHTER OF RS. 1,60,160.00, EXPENSES IN EDUCATION OF DAUGHTER OF RS. 14,050.00 BILL OF A SHWA TOURS AND TRAVELS OF RS. 13,042.00 BILL OF ASHWA TOURS AND TRAVELS OF RS . 30,000.00 AND BILL OF ASHWA TOURS OF TRAVELS OF RS. 85,784.00. THE AGGRE GATE OF EXPENDITURE COMES TO RS. 11,81 RS. 11.00 WHICH INCLUDES FDRS OF RS. 4 .00 LACS. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES ARE FDR AND COMPLIA NCE OF OTHER QUIRES AS PER NOTICE ALREADY GIVEN. AS PER ASSESSEE REPLIES FILE D EARLIER ARE TO BE TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO EARLIER QUERIES. THE FDRS WERE SAID TO HAVE MATURED AND WERE REINVESTED. REGARDING INVESTMENT/EXPENDITURE AGGRE GATING TO RS. 1,18,411.00 IT IS TO STATE THAT INCOME WAS DECLARED AT RS. 1,74,00 0.00 AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE WAS DECLARED FOR RS. 73,606.00 ALONG WITH CO MPUTATION OF INCOME, BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31.03.2004 WAS ALSO FILED THE I NVESTMENTS IN SHARES/FDRS/OTHER DEPOSIT WAS DECLARED AT RS. 9,58, 963.66 (A COPY OF THE RETURN, COMPUTATION OF INCOME, BALANCE SHEET WITH E NCLOSURES IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-5) AND SELF EXPLANATORY. THE UNDERSIGNED HAS ADMITTED TAKEN GIFTS AGGREGATING TO RS. 26,79,025.00 FROM VARIOUS SOURCE S INCLUDING GIFT FROM MR. SURENDRA AGGREGATING TO RS. 25,00,000.00 DURING THE YEAR. HENCE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. AS STATED ABOVE THERE IS OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE IN OPE NING CAPITAL OF RS. 13,44,000.00 (OPENING AT RS. 20,46,084.52 CLOSING CAPITAL OF RS. 7,02,084.00 AS ON 31.03.2003). THUS, THE EXPENDITURE OF 11,81, 411.00 HAS BEEN MET OUT OF DIFFERENCE OF OPENING CAPITAL. THE DIFFERENCE OF O PENING CAPITAL OF 13,44,000.00 IS ADJUST WITH THE OBJECT TO COVER THE TOTAL UNEXPL AINED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 11,81,411.00. HENCE THE AMOUNT OF RS. 13,44,000.00 IS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FACTS RELATABLE TO GROUND NO. 2: ITA NOS. 2316 TO 2320/DEL/2011 & CROSS OBJECTION N OS. 28 TO 30/DEL/ 2012 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,74,000/-. HER EXPENSES AT DELHI, WHICH INCLUDES MAINTENANCE OF CA RS, ELECTRICITY EXPENSES, TELEPHONE EXPENSES, EDUCATION EXPENSES OF DAUGHTERS AND OTHER HOUSE EXPENSES COULD NOT BE LESS THAN RS. 1.50 LACS. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HER EXPENSES OF RS. 1.50 LACS ARE TAKEN TO BE OUT OF HER UNDISCL OSED INCOME. FACTS RELATABLE TO GROUND NO. 3 & 4: DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE STATES TO HAVE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF GIFT OF RS. 25.00 LACS FROM SH. SURENDRA UPPAL. TH E ALLEGED GIFT IS NOT WITHOUT CONSIDERATION AS HELD IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 TH E ASSESSEE HAS BEEN IN RECEIPT OF PAYMENT FROM UPPAL GROUP OF CONCERNS, HE NCE INFACT THE AMOUNT OF GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE IS IN LIEU OF SERVICEDS RENDER ED BY HER. HENCE THE AMOUNT OF RS. 25.00 LACS IS TAKEN AS RECEIPT IN HER HANDS AND ADDED ACCORDINGLY. 6. THE LD. SR. DR PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE UPON THE AS SESSMENT ORDER SO AS TO SUBMIT THAT ON FACTS THE ADDITIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELETED AS THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN BLINDLY ACCEPTED B Y THE CIT(A) WITHOUT MAKING ANY EFFORT TO CROSS CHECK THE SAME. CONSIDERING THE FI NDINGS RECORDED THE LD. SR. DR WAS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED, HOWEVER, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER ARE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION MADE AND IT WAS HIS REQUEST TH AT THE IMPUNGED ORDER BE REVERSED AND ADDITIONS MADE MAY BE UPHELD. 7. THE LD. AR ADDRESSING THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE IS THE LAST PERSON WHO OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SEARCHED LOOKING AT THE NATURE OF THE INC OME AND IT IS A MATTER OF FACT THAT SHE HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO SEARCH ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT SHE WAS LIVING WITH THE LATE SH. SURENDRA UPPAL WHICH FACT WOULD BE BOR NE OUT FROM THE COPY OF THE PANCHNAMA FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK PAGE 25, WHEREIN COLUMN A OF THE WARRANT SHOWS THAT IT IS IN THE NAME OF SHRI SURENDRA UPPAL & SMT . PRITI VERMA AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SMT. PRITI VERMA B-42, GANGOTRI ENCLAVE , GK-II, NEW DELHI WHICH SHE HAS STATED RIGHT AT THE OUTSET THAT IT WAS PAID FOR BY SHRI UPPAL IN THE A.Y. 1998-99 AND IS FOUND RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. 7.1 INVITING ATTENTION TO THE PARA SIX OF THE IMPUG NED ORDER IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE EVIDENCES RELIED UPON BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) SOME OF WHICH MAY CONSTITUTE FRESH EVIDENCE WERE CONFRONTED TO THE AO WHO CHOOSE NOT TO OFFER ANY REBUTTAL THEREON AND THE LD. SR. DR ALSO HAS NOT REBUTTED AN Y EVIDENCE ON RECORD TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE CIT(A). IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT AS FAR AS THE FACTS RELATABLE TO THE FIRST GROUND ARE CONCERNED CONSISTENTLY IT IS T HE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS WAS PAID FOR WHILE SHRI SURENDRA UPPAL WHO WAS LIVING W ITH THE ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS FORMING PART OF THE FIXED ASSET OF THE ASSESSEE IT WAS DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION AND ITA NOS. 2316 TO 2320/DEL/2011 & CROSS OBJECTION N OS. 28 TO 30/DEL/ 2012 5 THE EVIDENCES IT WAS HIS STAND IT HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DELETED. INVITING ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID LADY DID NOT HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES NEVERTHELESS THE FACT ON RECO RD IS THAT IT WAS PURCHASED BY SHRI SURENDRA UPPAL IN 1998-99 ASSESSMENT YEAR AS SUCH T HE ADDITION WAS NOT WARRANTED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE EVIDENCES TAKEN INTO C ONSIDERATION BY THE CIT(A) HAVE DULY BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE AO AS IS EVIDENT FROM PARA S IX OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE: 6. A REPORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE AO ON THE SUB MISSIONS MADE AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED VIDE THIS OFFICE LET TER NO. 673 DATED 10.3.2010. SEVERAL REMINDERS THEREAFTER WERE GIVEN TO THE AO AND HIS SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES. NO REPORT HAS COME TILL DATE. THE APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORDS. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE ADMITTED AS THESE GO TO TH E VERY ROOT OF THE MATTER. 8.1 A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD SHOW TH AT RIGHT AT THE FIRST INSTANCE THE ASSESSEE HAS REPLIED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE SAI D FLAT WAS PURCHASED IN THE A.Y. 1998-99 BY SHRI SURENDRA UPPAL WHERE SHE HAS BEEN L IVING SINCE THEN AND AS PER PAGE 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK IT IS SEEN THAT AT THE TI ME OF SEARCH SH. SURENDERA UPPAL AND THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND LIVING AT THE SAME ADDR ESS. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER FURTHER SHOWS THAT AS PER THE STATEMENT RECOR DED ON 18/03/2005 DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED THE FOLLOWI NG QUESTION WHICH ALSO THROWS LIGHT ON THE ISSUE. THE SAME IS EXTRACTED FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER: Q3 PLEASE STATED THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASE OF FLAT NO.B-42A, GANGOTRI APARTMENT WITH SOURCE THEREOF. THE ANSWER TO THE Q3 A GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DT. 23.12.1997 WAS EXE CUTED BY MRS. ALPANA GUPTA IN FAVOUR OF MY BROTHER SH. PANKAJ JOH RI IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE FLAT (PAGE NO. 14 TO 16 OF ANNEXURE A-5). IT WAS AGREED THAT THE FLAT WAS ON SALE FOR RS. 12 LACS. THE AGREEMENT TO SALE WAS MADE ON MY NAME BY SHRI ALPANA GUPTA AND ENTIRE PAYMENT OF RS. 12 L ACS WERE MADE BY DECEMBER, 1997. THE MODE, MANNER AND SOURCE OF INV ESTMENT WHICH COULD BE BY SURENDRA UPPAL. I WILL ENQUIRE FROM HIS AND TILL IT ON THE NEXT DATE. 8.2 IT IS SEEN THAT IT WAS FURTHER STATED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED ON 29/09/2003 WHICH FACT IS EVI DENT FROM PAGES 19 TO 24 OF THE PAPER BOOK DISCLOSING THE SALE CONSIDERATION MAKING REFERENCE OF AGREEMENT TO SELL ON 20/04/1998 AS A RESULT OF WHICH PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE SAID FLAT HAD BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE WITH THE PROMISE TO EXECUTE A PROPER SALE DEED IN FUTURE WHICH ALSO HAS BEEN EXECUTED ON 29/09/2003. ACCORDINGLY THE REASON INCLUDING THE SAME IN THE OPENING BALANCE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION IT IS SEEN THAT FOLLOWING EXPLANATION HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSES SEE: ITA NOS. 2316 TO 2320/DEL/2011 & CROSS OBJECTION N OS. 28 TO 30/DEL/ 2012 6 IN ADDITION THE APPELLANT STATED THAT SINCE THE FL AT WAS PURCHASED AND REGISTERED IN F.Y. 2003-04 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2004-05 , THE ASSESSEE INCLUDED THIS AMOUNT IN THE BALANCE SHEET UNDER THE FIXED ASSESTSCHEDULE FORMING PART OF THE BALANCE SHEET. HOWEVER, THIS SPECIFIC ADDITION TO CAPITAL WAS NOT DEPICTED AS AD DITION TO CAPITAL SEPARATELY. THE DIFFERENCE EXACTLY REPRESENTS THIS AMOUNT AND UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES IT CAN BE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE APPELLANT HAS ATTACHED A COPY OF SALE DEED AND REFLECTING THE STA MP DUTY PAYMENT. 8.3 IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING ARRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGN ED ORDER AS ADMITTEDLY THE PAYMENT FOR THE SAID FLAT WAS MADE IN 1998-99 ASSESSMENT YE AR AND THAT TOO BY SHRI SURENDRA UPPAL NOTHING HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE DEPARTMENT BEF ORE US TO CONTROVERT THESE FACTS. IN THE FACTS AS THEY STAND WE FIND THERE IS NO MERI T IN THE DEPARTMENTAL GROUND. GROUND NO. 1 ACCORDINGLY IS REJECTED. 9. BY THE SECOND GROUND IT IS SEEN THAT THE DELETIO N OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES MET OUT OF U NEXPLAINED INCOME HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME LD. SR. DR HAS PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 10. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND HAS INVITED ATTENT ION TO THE SUBMISSION ADVANCED BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN THE BACKGROUND WHERE ALL FACTS WERE CONFRONTED TO THE AO AND NOT REBUTTED BY THE AO OR BY THE LD. SR. DR. RELYING ON THE SAME IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN HER MID 50S AND WAS MARRIED AT AN EARLY AGE AND HAD RECEIVED GOOD ALIMONY FROM HER HUSBAND FROM WHO M SHE WAS DIVORCED AND WHO WAS IN 1997 WORKING AS A MANAGER IN TEA ESTATE IN W EST BENGAL. IN SUPPORT OF THE ALIMONY RECEIVED CONFIRMATION FROM THE EX-HUSBAND H AD BEEN FILED WHEREIN MR. VERMA ACCEPTED THAT HE WOULD BEAR THE EXPENDITURE ON THE UPBRINGING OF HIS TWO DAUGHTERS SALONI & MOHINI VERMA AND THAT HE ALONG WITH HIS FA MILY WOULD FINANCIALLY HELP HIS WIFE TO SETTLE IN DELHI. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE DETAILS WERE NOT FILED BUT STATEMENT TO THIS EF FECT WAS MADE BY THE SAID LADY AND THE EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 11 TO 15 WERE CONFRONTED TO THE AO. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT APART FROM THIS THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE DR. URMILA JOLY WHO IS A RETIRED DOCTOR FR OM CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HEALTH SERVICES RESIDING IN 307 ALKANANDA, NEW DELHI ALSO ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT SHE HAS ALSO EXTENDED FULL SUPPORT TO THE ASSESSEE AND HER MINOR GRAND DAUGHTERS WHO RESIDED WITH HER AND THE ELECTRICITY, TELEPHONE ETC . EXPENSES AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD ITA NOS. 2316 TO 2320/DEL/2011 & CROSS OBJECTION N OS. 28 TO 30/DEL/ 2012 7 EXPENSES WERE TAKEN CARE OF BY HER. CONFIRMATION O F THE CERTIFICATE OF THE MOTHER IT WAS STATED IS AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH TO O HAS BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE AO AND NOT REBUTTED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS B EFORE THE CIT(A) AND NOT HAVE THESE BEEN CONTROVERTED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE LD. SR. DR. REFERRING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS CONTENDED THAT SHE DID NOT POSSESS OR OWN A CAR ACCORDINGLY, THE OCCASION TO M AINTAIN A CAR DID NOT ARISE. SINCE ELECTRICITY AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES IT WAS SUBMITTED WERE MET BY THE MOTHER AND EDUCATION EXPENSES FOR THE DAUGHTERS WERE MET BY TH E FATHER THE ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/- IT WAS SUBMITTED HAS RIGHTLY BEEN QU ASHED BY THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE FINDINGS ARRIVING AT CI T(A) IN PARA 9.3 IN THESE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES MAY BE UPHELD. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT IS SEEN THAT THE AVERMENTS MADE AND THE F INDINGS RECORDED HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE ON FACTS BY ANY EVIDENCE WH ATSOEVER. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE CONFIRMATION BY THE MOTHER OF ASSESSEE WHO WAS A RE TIRED DOCTOR FROM CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HEALTH SERVICES WHO ALSO CONFIRMS THE FA CT THAT THE DAUGHTERS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE RESIDING WITH HER ALL THE EXPENSES FO R TELEPHONE, ELECTRICITY AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES FOR THE ASSESSEE WERE BEING MET BY HER. THE EDUCATION EXPENSES OF THE DAUGHTERS OF THE ASSESSEE IT IS SE EN WERE MET BY THE EX-HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED DETAILS OF ALIMONY SETTLEMENT MONIES GIVEN BY HER EX-HUSBAND AND HIS FAMILY ALONG WITH COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF THE EX-HUSBAND. NONE OF THESE HAVE BEEN REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE. IN TH ESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO REVERSE THE FINDINGS AND UPHOLD THE ADDITION WHICH HAS BEEN MADE ON PURELY ESTIMATED BASIS. BEI NG SATISFIED BY THE CONCLUSION AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE CIT(DR) GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. THE FACTS RELATABLE TO GROUND NO. 3 & 4 ARE FOU ND DISCUSSED AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON WHICH HEAVY RELIANCE HAS BEEN P LACED BY THE LD. SR. DR WHO HAS SPECIFICALLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON REC ORD TO SHOW AS TO WHAT WAS THE OCCASION FOR MAKING THE GIFT. THE SPECIFIC OBSERVA TIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXTRACTED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER. 13. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND, INVITING ATTENTIO N TO THE COPY OF THE PANCHNAMA REITERATED THE FACT THAT ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE WA S LIVING WITH SHRI SURENDRA UPPAL IN THE FLAT WHICH WAS IN ASSESSEES NAME EVIDENCED BY WAY OF A SALE DEED. THE ASSESSEE IT WAS SUBMITTED ADMITTEDLY WAS SUBJECTED TO SEARCH PURELY ON ACCOUNT OF ITA NOS. 2316 TO 2320/DEL/2011 & CROSS OBJECTION N OS. 28 TO 30/DEL/ 2012 8 THE FACT THAT SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON THE COMPANIES OF SHRI SURENDRA UPPAL. THE AO OF THE ASSESSE AND SHRI SURENDRA UPPAL WHO WAS A LIVE AT THAT POINT OF TIME IT WAS SUBMITTED WAS THE SAME AO. THE FACT OF GIFTING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 25 LACS TO THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF A GIFT DEED IS EVIDENCED ON RECO RD. THE FACT THAT THE DONOR HAS DISCLOSED THIS GIFT HAVING BEEN MADE TO THE ASSESSE IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS A FACT ON RECORD. INVITING ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDE R IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT WHEREVER AND WHENEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS FROM UPPAL GROUP OF CONCERNS SHE HAS DISCLOSED THE SAME IN HER RETURNS FILED IN THE NORMAL COURSE. IN THESE CIRCU MSTANCES THE FINDINGS ON FACTS THAT THE AMOUNT IS A GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CI T(A) ADVANCED THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED PARA 8.2 OF TH E IMPUGNED ORDER, CONSIDERING WHICH THE CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO GRANT RELIEF: 8.2 THE APPELLANT IN HER SUBMISSION HAS STATED TH AT BOTH THE APPELLANT AND SHRI SURENDRA UPPAL (THE DONOR) IN HIS DISCLOSU RE IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT HAVE STATED THAT A SUM OF RS. 25,00,000 WAS GIFT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE RECEIPTS GIVEN T O HER BY UPPAL GROUP OF CONCERNS ARE SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITIES AND SHE HAS ACCOUNTED FOR PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS IN HER TAXABLE INCOME FROM TI ME TO TIME IN HER REGULAR RETURNS. SHE HAS ALSO PROVIDED THE GIFT DE ED AND THE BANK STATEMENTS OF SURENDRA UPPAL TO ESTABLISH THE SAME. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD CONSIDERING THE SAME WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER DOES NOT WARRANT ANY INTERFERENCE. THE REASONS FOR COMING T O THE CONCLUSION ARE BASED ON THE CUMULATIVE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THE CONCLUSION. COPY OF THE GIFT DEED ALONG WITH COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE D ONOR REFLECTING THE GIFT MADE BY SH. SURENDRA UPPAL IS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 16 TO 18 O F THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS SEEN THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING THAT THE SAID GIFT HAS BEEN MADE BY SHRI SURENDRA UPPAL ON ACCOUNT OF LOVE AND AFFECTION FOR THE ASSESSEE WITH WHOM ADMITTEDLY HE WAS LIVING. THE FACT THAT HE HA D BEEN LIVING WITH THE ASSESSEE OVER THE YEARS HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY SHRI SURENDRA U PPAL IN HIS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OVER THE YEARS PRIOR TO THE SEARCH IS A VAILABLE ON RECORD. THIS HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE. IN THESE PECULIAR FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THE SR. DR THAT THE RE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SPECIFIC REASON FOR MAKING THE GIFT IS OF NO RELEVANCE AS AD MITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS RECEIVED A FLAT FROM SHRI SURENDRA UPPAL IN 1998 WH ICH IS REGISTERED IN HER NAME IN THE ITA NOS. 2316 TO 2320/DEL/2011 & CROSS OBJECTION N OS. 28 TO 30/DEL/ 2012 9 YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS OFFERED PROFESSIONAL A ND CONSULTATION FEES RELATIVELY OF VERY SMALL AMOUNT FOR INTERIOR DECORATION AND CONSU LTANCY DOES NOT REQUIRE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC OCCASION FOR WHICH A GIFT OF RS. 25 LACS SHOULD BE MADE AS AFFECTION FOR THE ASSESSEE OVER THE YEARS IS EVIDEN T ON RECORD. IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEING SATISFIED BY THE CONCLUSION AND FINDING ARRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER GROUND NO. 3 & 4 OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 16. THE REMAINING GROUNDS IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEA L ARE GROUND NO. 5 AND 6. GROUND NO. 5 IS IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED G ROUNDS AND GROUND NO. 6 IS A RESIDUAL GROUND AS SUCH REQUIRE NO ADJUDICATION. T HESE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. ITA NO. 2317/DEL/2011 18. ITA NO. 2317/D/2011 HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVEN UE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-MEERUT DATED 25/02/2011 PERTAINING TO 2005-0 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS. 3,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES SOLELY RE LYING ON AN UNSUBSTANTIATED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WERE MET BY HER MOTHER AND BY HER EX-HUSBAND WHEREAS NO SUCH EVIDEN CE WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 6,20,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED GIFT WITHOUT APPRECI ATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH GIFT DESPITE THE SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN DOING SO, THE CIT(A) IGNORED THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF RAJIV TANDON VS. CIT, 294 ITR 219 WHICH CLEARLY LAYS THAT THE CONCEP T OF GENUINENESS OF GIFT WHICH ALSO INCLUDES THE OCCASION AND HUMAN PROBABIL ITIES IN PARTING WITH A SUM AS GIFT IN FAVOUR OF ANOTHER. CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THESE FACTORS WHILE GIVING RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF THIS ALLEGED GIFT. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS NEEDS TO BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WHEN NEED FOR DOI NG SO MAY ARISE. 19. THE COMMON STAND OF THE LD. SR. DR AND AR WAS T HAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES REMAINED IDENTICAL THE FINDINGS IN TH E EARLIER APPEAL WOULD APPLY HEREIN ALSO. IT IS SEEN THAT THE CIT(A) CONSIDERING HIS F INDING IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR QUA GROUND NO. 2 CAME TO THE FOLLOW ING CONCLUSION: - 7.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE, AOS ORDER AND ARS SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NATURALLY BEEN SUPPO RTED BY HER MOTHER AS FAR AS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES ARE CONCERNED AND HER EX- HUSBAND HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE EDUCATION OF HER CHILDREN AND TH EIR OTHER NEEDS, AS BOTH WERE OF SOUND MEANS, AS REFLECTED BY THE DOCUMENTS AND REPLIES FILED BEFORE ME. EVEN OTHERWISE THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVID ENCE FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND HAS MADE ARBITRARY AND AD HOC ADDITION . MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE ITA NOS. 2316 TO 2320/DEL/2011 & CROSS OBJECTION N OS. 28 TO 30/DEL/ 2012 10 AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THESE ARE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS RELATED TO SEARCH. HENCE, THE AD HOC ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000 /- IS DELETED. 20. IN VIEW OF OUR DETAILED FINDING ARRIVED AT IN G ROUNDNO.2 IN ITA NO. 2316/D/2011 HEREIN ALSO THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IS UPHELD. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE ALSO THAT THE CIT(A) IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESE NT CASE HAS ALSO MADE A REFERENCE TO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES CONSIDERED AND CONFRONTED TO THE AO IN REGARD TO WHICH SEVERAL REMINDERS WERE ALSO MADE SEEKING A REMAND R EPORT AND AS PER RECORD THEY REMAINED UN-REPLIED AS PER PARA SIX OF HIS ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE FINDING OF FACT DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 LACS IS UPHELD BY US . 21. THE ARGUMENTS QUA GROUND NO. 3 AND 4 BY THE PAR TIES REMAINED IDENTICAL TO THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED IN GROUND NO. 3 & 4 IN ITA N O. 2316/D/2011 THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BEING THAT IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEA R THE ASSESSEE WAS GIFTED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6,20,000/-. HEREIN ALSO THE LD. SR. DR CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO MAKE THE GIFT AND IN FACT THE ALLEGED G IFT IS ACTUALLY A PAYMENT FOR SERVICE RENDERED AS THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY PROVIDED HER SE RVICES AS AN INTERIOR DECORATOR AND ALSO CONSULTANCY TO THE SENIOR CITIZEN HOME COM PLEX WELFARE SOCIETY, UPPAL TOWER PVT. LTD. FOR READY REFERENCE WE EXTRACT THE PARA FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED UPON BY THE LD. S R. DR: DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE STATES TO HAVE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF GIFT OF RS. 6,20,000.00 FROM SHRI SURENDR A UPPAL. THE ALLEGED GIFT IS NOT WITHOUT CONSIDERATION AS HELD I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN IN RECEIPT OF PAYMENT FROM UPPAL GROUP OF CONCERNS TO ALSO RECEIVED RS. 40,000.00 ST ATED ABOVE FROM SENIOR CITIZEN HOME COMPLEX WELFARE SOCIETY. HENCE INFACT THE AMOUNT OF GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE IS IN LIEU OF SERVIC ES RENDERED BY HER. HENCE THE AMOUNT OF RS. 6,20,000.00 IS TAKEN AS REC EIPT IN THE HAND AND ADDED ACCORDINGLY. 22. THE LD. AR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE REMAIN IDENTICAL AND WHENEVER THERE HAS BEEN PROFES SIONAL RECEIPT IT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED THE FACT THAT SH. UPPAL DID LIVE WITH THE ASSESSEE OVER THE YEARS IS A FACT AND THUS THE GIFT MADE OUT OF LOVE AND AFFECTION CANNOT BE DOUBTED. THE AVERMENTS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ARE FOUND RECORDED IN PARA 8.2. THESE FACTS IT WAS SUBMITTED HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE. FOR READY REFERE NCE THE SAME IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: 8.2 THE APPELLANT IN HER SUBMISSION HAS STATED TH AT BOTH THE APPELLANT AND SHRI SURENDRA UPPAL (THE DONOR) IN HI S DISCLOSURE IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT HAVE STATED THAT A SUM OF RS. 6,20 ,000/- WAS GIFT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE RECEIPTS GIV EN TO HER BY UPPAL GROUP OF CONCERNS ARE SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITIES AND S HE HAS ACCOUNTED FOR PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS IN HER TAXABLE INCOME FRO M TIME TO TIME IN ITA NOS. 2316 TO 2320/DEL/2011 & CROSS OBJECTION N OS. 28 TO 30/DEL/ 2012 11 HER REGULAR RETURNS. SHE HAS ALSO PROVIDED THE GIF T DEED AND THE BANK STATEMENTS OF SURENDRA UPPAL TO ESTABLISH THE SAME. 23. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS IT IS SEEN TH E CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION IN PARA 8.3 TAKING SPECIFIC NOTE OF THE FACT THAT T HE AO HIMSELF HAS REPEATEDLY IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S FOUND LIVING WITH SHRI SURENDRA UPPAL AND THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN NOTE OF IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF SHRI SURENDRA UPPAL ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE REA SONS RECORDED IN ITA NO. 2316 WHILE CONCLUDING GROUNDS NO. 3 & 4 THE FINDINGS OF FACT RECORDED HEREIN TAKING NOTE OF PAGES 27 TO 28 WHICH CONTAINS COPY OF THE GIFT DEED BETWEEN SHRI SURENDRA UPPAL AND THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCEPTED THE REVENUES GROUND IS D ISMISSED. 24. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 2317/D/2011 IS DISMISSED . ITA NO. 2318/DEL/2011 25. ITA NO. 2318 HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 25/02/2011 OF CIT(A)-MEERUT PERTAINING TO 2003-04 A SSESSMENT YEAR. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN QUASHING T HE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO. THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS RAISED READ AS UNDER: - 1. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 3,43,034/- U/S 271(1)(C) ON A WRONG APPRECIATION OF FACTS. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE ABOVE PENA LTY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS TO THE INCOME IN THE QUANTUM ORDER THOUGH HAS NOT BEEN APPEALED A GAINST BECAUSE OF SMALLNESS OF REVENUE BUT PENALTY APPEAL IS BEING FILED BECAUSE THE REVENUE INVOLVED IS MORE THAN RS. 3,00,000/-. 26. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN HEARD. THE POSITION OF FACT ON WHICH THERE IS NO DISPUTE IS THAT THE ADDITION IN THE QUANTUM PROCEED INGS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PENALTY WAS IMPOSED STANDS DELETED. THIS FINDING OF FACT H AS NOT BEEN UPSET AS IS EVIDENT BY GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE. IN THE AFOREMENTION ED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDIN GS ARRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) WHICH FINDS FAVOUR WIT H US READS AS UNDER: - 4. THE AO MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMEN T IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE HAS IMPOSED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING THAT THE AS SESSEE CONCEALED HER INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME. THE APPELLANT MADE SUBMISSIONS DURING THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS T HE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN QUANTUM APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH I HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION IN MY ORDER OF DATE IN APPEAL NO. 173/07-0 8. THE ADDITION HAVING BEEN DELETED AND EXPLANATIONS GIVEN DURING APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS, I, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, HOLD THAT IT IS NOT A CASE WHIC H IS HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 1 OF SECTION 271(1)(C). PENALTY IS HELD AS NOT IMPOSABLE IN VIEW OF THE RATIO OF THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE P ETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 322 ITR 158 (SC). PENALTY ORDER IS CANCELLED. ITA NOS. 2316 TO 2320/DEL/2011 & CROSS OBJECTION N OS. 28 TO 30/DEL/ 2012 12 27. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 2319/DEL/ & 2320/DEL/2011 28. ITA NOS. 2319/D/2011 & 2320/D/2011 HAVE BEEN FI LED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 25/02/2011 OF CIT(A)-MEER UT IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) FOR 2004-05 & 2005-06 ASSESSMENT YEARS AS SAILING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ON THE GROUND THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED. IT IS SEEN THAT IN BOTH THE APPEALS THE CIT(A) IN PARA 4 HAS PROCEEDED TO QUASH THE PENALTY IMPOSED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE IN QUANTUM HAVE BEEN DELETED. SINCE THE SAID FINDINGS ON FACT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY US WHILE DECIDI NG THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING ARRIVING AT. ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE UPHELD. 29. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THREE CROSS OBJECTIONS NO. 28 TO 30/D/2012 IN 2003- 04 TO 2005-06 ASSESSMENT YEARS. HOWEVER, AT THE TI ME OF ARGUMENTS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME ARE NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, THE CR OSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 30. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND T HE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 SD/- SD/- (J.S. REDDY) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 26/09/2014 *KAVITA, P.S. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NOS. 2316 TO 2320/DEL/2011 & CROSS OBJECTION N OS. 28 TO 30/DEL/ 2012 13