ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Sunil Kumar, New Delhi

ITA 2379/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 237920114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R R KUMAR SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: S K GOYAL
• Keywords: Gift; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2379/DEL./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITO, WARD 25 (2), VS. SHRI SUNIL KUMAR, NEW DELHI. PROP. SHIV SHANKAR JEWELLERS, WZ 2168, OLD POLICE CHOWKI, RANI BAGH, DELHI. (PAN : AFFPB9890K) CO NO.158/DEL/2013 (IN ITA NO.2379/DEL./2013) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SHRI SUNIL KUMAR, VS. ITO, WARD 25 (2), PROP. SHIV SHANKAR JEWELLERS, NEW DELHI. WZ 2168, OLD POLICE CHOWKI, RANI BAGH, DELHI. (PAN : AFFPB9890K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.K. GOYAL, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, SENIOR DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEAL S)-XXIV, NEW DELHI DATED 15.02.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NO.2379/DEL/2013 CO NO.158/DEL/2013 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF JEWEL LERY IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. SHIV SHANKAR JEWELLERS. THE RETURN O F INCOME WAS FILED ON 15.09.2009 DECLARING INCOME AT RS.2,99,980/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THREE ADDITIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT (A) AND NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL :- 1. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,59,248/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF G.P. RATE AND COMMISSION. 2. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,44,015/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT. 3. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,98,000/- MADE BY T HE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE FILED CROSS OBJECTION BY TAKING THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- THE ASSESSEE FILED INCOME TAX RETURN FOR A.Y. 2009 -10 ON 15.09.2009 DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.2,,99,980/-. THE CAS E WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 8,59,248/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION OF G.P. RATE AND COMMISSION (RS. 6,94,748/- + RS.1, 64,500 = RS. 8,59,248), RS. 13,44,015/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED GI FT AND RS. 3,98,0001- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN RESPECTIVELY AND ASSES SED HIM AT AN INCOME OF RS. 29,01,243/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BE FORE THE CIT. THE LEARNED CIT DELETED ALL THE THREE ADDITIONS. THE DE PARTMENT FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE ITAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT A PPEAL AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL - 1. THE DEPARTMENT OBJECTED TO THE DELETION OF RS. 8 ,59,248/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF G.P. RATE AND COMMISSION. T HE ADDITION OF G.P. WAS RS.6,94,738/- AND OF COMMISSION RS.1,64,500/-. THE ADDITION IN G.P. WAS MADE BY INCREASING G.P. RATIO FROM 0.08% TO 0.0 5% AND COMMISSION FROM RS. 1,35,500/- TO RS. 3,00,000/-. BOTH THESE A DDITIONS WERE MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE ON REC ORD. THE CIT APPEAL HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY AO. THE G ROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE HAS NO MERITS AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE DI SMISSED ON BOTH FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE DEPARTMENT OBJECTED TO THE DELETION OF RS.13 ,44,015/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT. THE SAID GIFT WAS REC EIVED IN THE SHAPE OF JEWELLERY FROM HIS BROTHER SHRI DINESH BANSAL. ASSE SSEE FILED INCOME TAX RETURN, WEALTH TAX RETURN AND GIFT DEED AND AFFIDAV IT ETC. OF SHRI DINESH BANSAL BEFORE THE AO BUT EVEN THEN ADDITION WAS MAD E. SHRI DINESH ITA NO.2379/DEL/2013 CO NO.158/DEL/2013 3 BANSAL APPEARED BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES AN D CONFIRMED THAT HE GAVE GIFT IN JEWELLERY TO HIS BROTHER. THE CIT APPE AL HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN A PPEAL HAS NO MERIT AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON BOTH FACTS AND IN LAW. 3. THE DEPARTMENT OBJECTED THE DELETION OF RS.3,98, 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE R ELEVANT DOCUMENTS RELATING TO LOAN RECEIVED FROM PARDEEP BANSAL (HUF) AND FROM PRITI BANSAL. NO LOAN WAS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR FROM S MT. RAJRANI BUT EVEN THEN ADDITION WAS MADE. THE CIT APPEAL HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER VERIFYING THE DOCUMENTS AND BEING SATISFIED. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN APPEAL HAS NO MERITS AND THEREFORE L IABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON BOTH FACTS AND IN LAW. 3. IN THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL AND G ROUND NO.1 OF CROSS OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS DELETI NG THE ADDITION OF RS.8,59,248/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT RATE. REVENUE OBJECTS THE DELETION WHEREAS ASSESSEES CRO SS OBJECTION SUPPORTS THE DELETION. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT SUBMITTED COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ALONG WITH THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN SPITE OF VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO HIM. AS PER THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED GROSS PROFIT OF RS.1,40,927/- WHICH CO MES TO 0.08%. ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED 0.5% AS GROSS PROFIT RATE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.6,94,748/- (RS.8,35,675/- MINUS RS.1,40,927/-). THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION. AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER , IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, NO DETAILS WERE FILED IN RESPECT OF COMMISSION INCOME OF RS.1,35,500/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE COMMISSION INCOME AT RS.3,00,000/- AND MADE AN ADDI TION OF RS.1,64,500/- ITA NO.2379/DEL/2013 CO NO.158/DEL/2013 4 (RS.3,00,000/- MINUS RS.1,35,500/-). THE CIT (A) H AS DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 4.2 IN GROUND NO. 2, THE APPELLANT HAS IMPUGNED TH E ADDITION OF RS.6,94,738/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASE IN GP RATIO FR OM 0.08% TO 0.5% OF THE TURNOVER. THE AO MADE THIS ADDITION ON THE GROU NDS THAT SALES AND PURCHASES WERE NOT VERIFIABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS, BILLS AND VOUCHERS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ID. AR OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, F OLLOWING DOCUMENTS WERE PLACED BEFORE THE ID. AO TO JUSTIFY THE ACCOUN TS: (A) COPY OF AUDITED BALANCE SHEET ALONG WITH P&L A /C. AND AUDITOR'S REPORT. (B) COPY OF SALES TAX RETURNS. (C) COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE APPELLAN T. (D) COPY OF DETAILS OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE APPE LLANT. (E) COPY OF DETAILS OF VAT PAID. (F) CONFIRMATION FROM DEBTORS AND CREDITORS. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO DID NOT BRI NG ON RECORD ANY DISCREPANCY WHATSOEVER WITH THE ABOVE PAPERS. FURTH ERMORE, HE HAS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT PURCHASE AND SALES WERE NOT VERIFIABLE AND THEREFORE, HE INCREASED THE GP RATIO . THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT FILED VAT RETURN AND VAT TAX PAI D CHALLANS BEFORE THE AO, FROM WHICH THE SALES AND PURCHASE CAN BE EASILY VERIFIED. MOREOVER, ALL THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS AND BANK STATEMENTS, WERE A LSO AVAILABLE WITH THE AO. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE REASONING OF TH E AO GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS MADE B Y THE ID. AR. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THE SALES TAX RET URNS AND VAT PAID CHALLANS FILED BEFORE THE AO, THE ENHANCEMENT IN TH E GP RATIO AND THE ADDITION OF RS.6,94,738/- DOES NOT APPEAR JUSTIFIED , PARTICULARLY WHEN NO DEFECTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO. THE PURCHASE AND SALES LEDGERS ALONG WITH THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET, P&L A /C. AND AUDITOR'S REPORT WERE ALSO AVAILABLE WITH THE AO. IN THE LIGH T OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ADDITION OF RS.6,94,738/- APPEARS TO BE UNSUBST ANTIATED AND BASED ON PURE GUESS WORK ON THE PART OF THE AO. THE ADDITION IS THEREFORE, DELETED. 4.3 IN THE THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT HA S IMPUGNED THE ADDITION OF RS.L,64,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION INCOME ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIO N HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND BEING TOTALLY WRONG AND BAD I N LAW, REQUIRES TO BE QUASHED. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT COMMISSION ON SALES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTS SALES MADE THROUGH HIM BY O THER JEWELERS AND THE COMMISSION RECEIVED BY HIM ON SALES MADE THROUGH HI M ON HIS REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDATIONS. THE APPELLANT SUBMI TTED THAT SOMETIMES CUSTOMERS COME TO HIS SHOP FOR PURCHASE O F JEWELLERY BUT MAY NOT LIKE THE AVAILABLE ORNAMENTS. IN SUCH CASES, HA VING FAITH IN HIM, THE CUSTOMERS ASK HIM FOR REFERENCES AND HE TAKES THEM TO OTHER SHOPS AND ON ITA NO.2379/DEL/2013 CO NO.158/DEL/2013 5 SUCH PURCHASES, THE SHOP KEEPERS PAY COMMISSION TO HIM WHICH IS DECLARED BY HIM IN HIS P&L A/C. AS INCOME. THE APPE LLANT FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS NOT FAIR OR LEGAL ON THE PART OF THE AO TO ESTIMATE HIS COMMISSION INCOME AT RS.3 LACS, INSTEAD OF RS.1 ,35,500/- SHOWN BY HIM IN THE P&L A/C. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO HAS ESTI MATED THE COMMISSION INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUNDS T HAT DETAILS OF COMMISSION EARNED WERE NOT PROVIDED BY THE APPELLAN T. THE AO DOES NOT HAVE ANY SOUND BASIS FOR THE ENHANCEMENT AND THE AD DITION APPEARS TO BE BASED ON SUPPOSITIONS, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. TH E ADDITION IS THEREFORE DELETED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE COPY OF AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LO SS ACCOUNT ALONG WITH THE AUDITORS REPORT, COPY OF SALES TAX RETURNS, COPY O F BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, COPY OF DETAILS OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE, COPY OF VAT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMATION FROM DEBTORS AND CREDITORS ETC. A SSESSING OFFICER HA D NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS. NOW, ALSO REVENUE FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF CIT (A), THERE FORE, WE FIND NO MERITS IN THE REVENUES CONTENTIONS ON THIS ISSUE. SIMILARLY, TH E ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION INCOME HAS ALSO BEEN DELETED BY CONSIDER ING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS NO BASIS TO ESTIMATE SUCH INCOME. IT WAS COMPLETELY BASELESS ADDITION, THEREFORE, AFTER HEARING BOTH TH E SIDES, WE FIND THAT REVENUE IS FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE CIT ( A). WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS GROUND. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND O F REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO.2, BOTH IN REVENUES APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE, IS REGARDING DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,44,015/- ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS. ITA NO.2379/DEL/2013 CO NO.158/DEL/2013 6 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THIS ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE DONOR, SHRI DINESH BANSAL ON VARIOUS DATES WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT THE ASSE SSEE AVOIDED TO PRODUCE THE DONOR. SINCE THE DONOR WAS NOT PRODUCED FOR CROSS EXAMINATION NOR PRODUCED HIS RETURN OF WEALTH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008- 09 AND 2009-10, THEREFORE, THIS GIFT WAS HELD TO BE NON-GENUINE AND THE AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT (A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDI TION BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 4.4 IN GROUND NO. 4, THE APPELLANT HAS IMPUGNED TH E ADDITION OF RS.13,44,015/- TO HIS INCOME DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE HAD FILED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM HIS ELDER BROTHER, SH. DINESH BANSAL WHO HAD G IFTED HIM 1200 GMS OF JEWELLERY. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THIS JEW ELLERY WAS SOLD BY HIM AND THE AMOUNT WAS INTRODUCED BY HIM AS CAPITAL. TH E BILLS FOR SALE OF JEWELLERY ARE PLACED ON RECORD. THE RETURN OF INCOM E OF SH. DINESH BANSAL FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IS PLACED ON RECORD. THE LA ST ASSESSMENT OF WEALTH OF SH. DINESH BANSAL IS ALSO PLACED ON RECOR D, WHICH IS FOR A.Y. 2001-02, ALONG WITH THE VALUATION OF JEWELLERY. THE AO ADDED THIS AMOUNT SINCE SH. DINESH BANSAL DID NOT APPEAR BEFOR E HIM FOR CROSS- EXAMINATION. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, SH. DIN ESH BANSAL PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME AND CONFIRMED THAT HE HAD GIVEN A GIFT OF JEWELLERY TO HIS YOUNGER BROTHER, SINCE HE REQUIRED THE MONEY FOR HIS BUSINESS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FAMILY LIVED TOGETH ER AS A JOINT FAMILY HEADED BY THEIR FATHER AND THE FAMILY DECISIONS ARE TAKEN TOGETHER AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THEIR FATHER. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND PERSONAL DEPOSITION OF SH. DINESH BANSAL WHO CONFIRMED HAVING GIVEN THE GIFT TO HIS YOUNGER BROT HER, THE ADDITION OF RS.13,44,015/- DOES NOT STAND THE TEST OF JUDICIAL SCRUTINY AND IS THEREFORE DELETED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE. WE F IND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE DONOR, SHRI DINESH BANSAL BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, SHRI DINESH BANSAL WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND ON THAT BASIS, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE CIT (A). IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, CIT (A) SHOULD HAVE GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER ALSO FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF SHRI DINESH BANSAL WHO APPEARED BEFO RE HIM. CIT (A) SHOULD ITA NO.2379/DEL/2013 CO NO.158/DEL/2013 7 HAVE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO C ROSS EXAMINE THE DONOR, SHRI DINESH BANSAL. CIT (A) HAD NOT DONE SO. IT I S AGAINST THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN VIEW OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) WITH A DIRECTION THAT HE WOULD GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO CROSS EXAMIN E SHRI DINESH BANSAL (DONOR) WITH REGARD TO THE GIFTS GIVEN TO THE ASSES SEE. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF CIT (A) AND THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE ISSUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. 9. GROUND NO.3, BOTH THE REVENUES APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE, IS REGARDING DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,98,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN. 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THIS ADDITION BY HOL DING AS UNDER :- 5. A PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.1,68,000/- FROM PRITI B ANSAL, RS.1,00,000/- FROM RAJ RANI & RS.1,30,000/- FROM PRADEEP BANSAL. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT CONFIRMATION, INCOME TAX PARTICULAR S AND BANK STATEMENTS OF THE LENDERS FOR PROVING IDENTITY, CRE DITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS WITH RESPECT TO THESE RECEIPTS. PERUSAL OF BANK STATEMENTS OF THE LENDERS REVEALED THAT BEFORE ISSUING THE CHEQUE CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT CONSI STENTLY THE ASSESSEE HAS GATHERED FUNDS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT THROUGH CHEQUES/ INSTRUMENTS BY GETTING THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF HIS RELATIVES/FAMILY MEMBERS JUST PRIOR TO CLEARING OF CHEQUES/INSTRUMEN TS IN HIS FAVOUR. HOWEVER, THE INFERENCE OF GENUINENESS DOES NOT READ ILY FOLLOW MERELY ON IDENTIFICATION OF THE LENDER ON RECEIPT O F MONEY THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. HIS CAPACITY TO MAKE A LOAN IS EQ UALLY RELEVANT. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE CAPACITY OF THE LENDERS WAS HARDLY PROVEN AS IDENTICAL CASH WAS DEPOSITED JUST PRIOR TO CLEARING IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS BY: 1. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V MOHANKALA (P) 291 IT R 278 (2007) 2. HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN SAJAN DASS & SONS VS CI T (264 ITR 435) ITA NO.2379/DEL/2013 CO NO.158/DEL/2013 8 HENCE, THE SUM OF RS.3,98,000/- IS TREATED AS INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. I AM ALS O SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED HIS PARTICULARS OF INCOME UP TO THIS EXTENT, THEREFORE, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ARE ALSO INTIMATED SEPARATELY. 11. THE CTI (A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION BY HOLDIN G AS UNDER :- 4.5 IN GROUND NO. 5, THE APPELLANT HAS IMPUGNED TH E ADDITION OF RS.3,98,000/- TO HIS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIE D UNSECURED LOANS. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED IN ALL THE THREE CASES. THE LD. AR OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE LOAN CONFIRMATION OF SMT. RAJRANI THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 LAC WAS THE ONLY BALANCE AND IT WAS NOT TAKEN AS UNSECU RED LOAN DURING THE CURRENT YEAR. AS REGARDS THE LOAN OF RS.L,30,000/- RECEIVED FROM SH. PRADEEP BANSAL, THE ID. AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS AMOU NT WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED FROM M/S. PRADEEP BANSAL HUF, (SH. PRADEEP BANSAL IS THE BROTHER OF THE APPELLANT), WHOSE CONFIRMATION HAS B EEN PLACED ON RECORD ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME, ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME AND ALSO A COPY OF HIS BANK STATEMENT IN ALL AHABAD BANK, ROHTAK BEING A/C. NO. 20160516136. AS REGARDS THE LOAN OF RS.L,65,000/- RECEIVED FROM SMT. PRITI BANSAL, SISTER-IN-LAW OF T HE ASSESSEE, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LOAN CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FILED ALONG WITH HER COMPUTATION OF INCOME, COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RE TURN FILED, AND COPY OF HER BANK STATEMENT IN ALLAHABAD BANK, ROHTA K BEING ALC. NO. 20160516103. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE EVIDENCES, N O ADDITION CAN BE MADE BY TREATING THESE UNSECURED LOANS AS UNVERIFIE D. THE ADDITION OF RS.3,98,0001- IS HEREBY DELETED. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED LOAN CONFIRMATION FROM ALL THESE PARTIES. THE LOAN SHOWN FROM SMT. RAJ RANI WAS OUTSTANDING FROM PREVIOUS YEAR AND IT WAS A CAR RY FORWARD BALANCE AND THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT TAKEN DURING THE YEAR. THE CONFIRMA TION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WITH REGARD TO THE LOAN TAKEN OF RS.1,30,000/- FRO M M/S. PARDEEP BANSAL HUF AND THE DETAILS OF THE BANK STATEMENT AND THE INCOM E-TAX DETAILS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM AMOUNT WAS TAKEN, WAS ALSO SUBMITTED. SI MILARLY WITH REGARD TO AMOUNT OF RS.1,68,000/- RECEIVED FROM SMT. PREETI B ANSAL, SISTER-IN-LAW, NECESSARY CONFIRMATION WAS SUBMITTED. COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS ALSO ITA NO.2379/DEL/2013 CO NO.158/DEL/2013 9 SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT, TH EREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO MERITS IN THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE SAME STANDS DISMISSED. 13. GROUND NO.4 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT R EQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. THE GROUNDS TAKEN IN THE CROSS OBJECTION WERE I N SUPPORT OF THE CIT (A) ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE HAS COME UP IN APPE AL. WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THE GROUND NOS.1 & 3 IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, THEREFORE, GROUND NOS.1 & 3 OF THE CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. WE HAVE A LLOWED GROUND NO.2 IN THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THEREFOR E, GROUND NO.2 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. TO SUM UP : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 21 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014 TS ITA NO.2379/DEL/2013 CO NO.158/DEL/2013 10 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XXIV, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT