Smt. Komal Arora, Noida V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2402/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8320 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Salary income; Source of fund; Additional evidence; Onus to prove; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 143(1); 143(2); 69A

Judgement Text

ITA NO.- 2402/DEL/2015. KOMAL ARORA VS. ACIT PAGE 1 OF 15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: E: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO:- 2402/DEL/2015 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) KOMAL ARORA, C/O CA ANOOP KUMAR JAIRATH, NOIDA. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 24(1), NEW DELHI. PAN NO: AAGPA0329J APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MS. RAKHI VIMAL, SR. DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM [A]. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31.01.2015 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11, NEW DELHI [IN SHORT, LD.CIT(A)] PERTAINING TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE APR OPOS THE SOURCES OF THE FUNDS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 60,38,000/-, OUGHT TO HAD BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND MADE THE BASIS OF THE APPELLANT ORDER. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN ARBITRARY REJEC TING THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICE U/S 1 3(6) ISSUED TO M/S MAHINDRA ENTERPRISES HAD RETURNED UNDELIVERED, THEREBY OVERL OOKING THE FACTS THAT (I) THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBSEQUENTLY PAID THE PURCHASE CONSIDE RATION TOT IT THROUGH BANKING ITA NO.- 2402/DEL/2015. KOMAL ARORA VS. ACIT PAGE 2 OF 15 CHANNEL; AND (II) THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES REMARK WA S ADDRESSEE MOVED AND NOT THAT NO SUCH PARTY AT THIS ADDRESS. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN DISBELIEVING THE EXPLANATION REGARDING SOURCES OF T HE FUNDS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 60,38,000/-. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 60,38,000/-, AS ARBIT RARILY MADE BY THE LD. A.O. [B]. VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.12.2011 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 82,02,460/- (ROUNDED OFF). IN THIS ASSESSMENT ORDE R, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 60,38,000/- (DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN C ORPORATION BANK) WAS ADDED TO THE ASSESSEES RETURNED INCOME. THE RELEVANT PORTION O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-1 0 WAS FILED ON 31.7.2009 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.21,64,456/- WHICH WAS PRO CESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) ON RETURNED INCOME. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUT INY UNDER CASS AS PER GUIDELINES/PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION OF CASES FOR SCR UTINY. 2. ACCORDINGLY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSU ED BY ITO WARD 24(4), NEW DELHI ON 20.8.2010 AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE FIXING FOR HEARING ON 10.9.2010. THEREAFTER CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THIS CIRCLE AND MY PREDECESSOR ISSUED NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) ON 10.6.2011 C ALLING FOI'IJIFORMATION ON AIR AND SOURCES OF INCOME. THEREAFTER, AFTER TAKING OVE R THE CHARGE OF THIS CIRCLE, THE UNDERSIGNED ISSUED NOTICES U/S 142(1) ON & ON 20.10 .2011 WHICH WAS COMPLIED WITH. SHRI ANOOP KUMAR JAIRATH, CA APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR HAS BEEN FILED AND THE SAME WAS VERIFIED AND PLACED ON RECORDS. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSU LTANCY. BESIDES THIS THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN SALARY INCOME AND INTER EST INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE AR FOR THE ASSESSE E APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AS PER ENTRIES IN THE ORDER SHEET. DOCUMENTS R ELATING TO THE INCOME PRODUCED/COPIES FILED WHICH WERE PLACED ON RECORDS AFTER VERIFICATION. ITA NO.- 2402/DEL/2015. KOMAL ARORA VS. ACIT PAGE 3 OF 15 4. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE DETAILS OF AIR IN FORMATION AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL FILED A REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: PLEASE REFER TO THE AIR INFORMATION PROVIDED BY YO U OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER AIR ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS.55,38,000/- IN HIS SAVING A/C WITH CORPORATATION BANK NO. 009676, ABN AMRO BANK A/C NO.1281665, ABN AMRO BANK A/C NO.1337535 AND HDFC BANK A/C NO.06511600000712. ASSESSEE HEREB Y ADMIT THAT THE AMOUNT MENTIONED ABOVE WAS UNDISCLOSED SALE PROCEED S EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY. ASSESSE E ALSO ADMIT THAT THE INVESTMENT IN BIRLA SUN LIFE MUTUAL FUND FOR RS. 5, 00,000/- WAS ALSO MADE OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS. ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADIN G OF CLOTHS. ASSESSEE SOLD THE CLOTHS TO THE VARIOUS PETTY STREET VENDORS. COP IES OF SOME SALE AND PURCHASE BILLS ALONG BANK STATEMENTS ARE ENCLOSED FOR YOUR R EFERENCE. ASSESSEE ALSO ADMITS THAT HE HAS EARNED APPROX. 4% TO 5% PROFIT O N THE SALE. ASSESSEE SUOMOTO OFFER THE SAID PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT ON FOR THE TAXABLE BY THE DEPARTMENT. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THAT HE WAS DOING CLO TH SELLING BUSINESS WHICH WAS NEVER DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF CLOTH HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED INSTEA D THE AMOUNT EARNED OUT OF SALE OF THE CLOTH STATED TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANKS AND IN BIRLA SUN LIFE MUTUAL FUND. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK AND MUTUAL FUND WAS HIS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS LETTER FILED ON THROUGH HIS COU NSEL, HAS STATED THAT HE ADMITS THAT HE HAS EARNED APPROX., 4% TO 5% PROFIT ON THE SALE. ASSESSEE SUOMOTO OFFER THE SAID PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT ON SALE FOR THE TAXABLE BY THE DEPARTMENT. WHEN CONFRONTED TO EXPLAIN THE INVESTMENT MADE IN T HE PURCHASE OF CLOTH AND THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANKS AND BIRLA SUN LI FE MUTUAL FUND AMOUNTING TO RS.55,38,000/- AND RS.5,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN ANY THING ELSE EXCEPT WHATEVER ST ATED IN HIS LETTER. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS DOING THE BUSINESS OF SALE OF CLOTHS TO THE PETTY VENDORS AND THE SOUR CE OF DEPOSIT/INVESTMENT IN THE BANK/MUTUAL FUND AND PURCHASE OF CLOTHS HAS ALS O NOT EXPLAINED. THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER HAS HIMSELF ACCEPTED THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANKS IS OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SALE PROCEEDS OF CLOTH, AND THE DEPOSIT IN MUTUAL FUNDS AMOUNTING TO RS.5,00,000/- IS ALSO FROM THE S ALE PROCEEDS OF UNDISCLOSED CLOTH ACTIVITIES. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN TH E INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF CLOTH FOR SALE AND STATED THAT SALE PROCEEDS HAVE B EEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK/MUTUAL FUND WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. HENCE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF ITA NO.- 2402/DEL/2015. KOMAL ARORA VS. ACIT PAGE 4 OF 15 RS.55,38,000/- + RS.5,00,000/- TOTALING RS.60,38,00 0/- IS CONSIDERED ASSESSEES OWN INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND THE SAME IS ADDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. I AM SATISFIED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE TAXABLE INCOME BY FURNISHING INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) ARE INITIATED SEPARATELY. [D] AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSE E PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). VIDE AFORESAID IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30.01.2015, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE RELEVANT PORTI ON OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 2. THE RETURN DECLARED INCOME OF RS.21,64,456/- W AS FILED ON 31.7.2009 WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) AND LATER SELECTED F OR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. ACCORDINGLY AO ISSUED STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) O F THE ACT. ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE CONSULTANCY BUSINESS AND APART FROM THIS INCOME FROM SALARY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WAS ALSO DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2.1.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO ASK ED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE INFORMATION AS PER AIR, WHICH WAS SUPPL IED TO HIM, RELATING TO CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.55,38,000/- IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOU NTS MAINTAINED WITH CORPORATION BANK (A/C NO. 009676), ABN AMRO BANK (A/C NO. 12816 65 AND A/C NO. 1337535), AND HDFC BANK (A/C NO.06511600000712) AND INVESTMEN TS IN MUTUAL FUNDS OF RS.5,00,000/-. IN RESPONSE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED FOLLOWING REPLIES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER: 'PLEASE REFER TO THE AIR INFORMATION PROVIDED BY YO U OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER AIR ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS.55,38,000/- IN HIS SAVING A/C WITH CORPORATION BANK NO. 009676, ABN AMRO BANK A/C NO.1281665, ABN AMRO BANK A/C NO. 1337535 AND HDFC BANK A/C NO. 06511600000712. ASSESSEE HEREBY ADMIT THAT THE AMOU NT MENTIONED ABOVE WAS UNDISCLOSED SALE PROCEEDS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COU RSE OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY. ASSESSEE ALSO ITA NO.- 2402/DEL/2015. KOMAL ARORA VS. ACIT PAGE 5 OF 15 ADMIT THAT THE INVESTMENT IN BIRLA SUN LIFE MUTUAL FUND FOR RS.5,00,000/- WAS ALSO MADE OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS. ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADIN G OF CLOTHS. ASSESSEE SOLD THE CLOTHS TO THE VARIOUS PETTY STREET VENDORS. COPIES OF SOME SA LE AND PURCHASE BILLS ALONG BANK STATEMENTS ARE ENCLOSED FOR YOUR REFERENCE. ASSESSEE ALSO ADMI TS THAT HE HAS EARNED APPROX. 4% TO 5% PROFIT ON THE SALE. ASSESSEE SUO MOTO OFFER THE SAI D PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT ON SALE FOR THE TAXABLE BY THE DEPARTMENT. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THOUGH ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE EARNED OUT OF SALE OF CL OTH OUT OF WHICH INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS AND DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE MADE, BUT HE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT FOR MAKING PURCHASES ETC. WITH REGARD TO SOURCE OF INVESTMENT FOR MAKING PURCHASES NO EXPLANATION COUL D BE FILED BY THE AR BEFORE THE AO. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, AO TREATED THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS, AS M ENTIONED SUPRA, OF RS.55.38 LACS AND INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS AS MADE FROM UNDISCL OSED SOURCES. THUS, TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPUTED BY THE AO AT RS.82,02,460/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.82,02,460/-. PENALTY PROC EEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) WERE ALSO INITIATED BY THE AO SEPARATELY. GROUNDS OF APPEAL 2. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE RAIS ED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 2.1 THE LD. AO HAS ERRED ON FACTS IN LAW IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS CONTRARY TO LAW, ENQUIRY AND JUSTICE AND FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES, PASSES WITHOUT APPLICATIO N OF MIND, WITHOUT GRANTING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND. 2.2 THE APPELLANT DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO TAX AND INTER EST AS DETERMINED AND ITA NO.- 2402/DEL/2015. KOMAL ARORA VS. ACIT PAGE 6 OF 15 COMPUTED BY THE LD. AO AND THE MANNER IN WHICH IT H AS BEEN SO DETERMINED OR COMPUTED. 2.3 THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IN TOTAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.60,38,000/- ON ACC OUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED SALE OF CLOTH IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PURCHASE THEREOF. 2.4 THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AND PERMISSION OF THE HONBLE C1T(A) TO ADD TO OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME UP T O THE FINAL DECISION OF THE APPEAL. 2.5 THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE AND SANCTION OF THE HON BLE CIT(A) TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, IF SO REQUIRED FOR PROPER PROSECUTION OF THE CASE, BASED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN OR COULD NOT BE E DUCED OR FILED BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES EITHER BECAUSE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OP PORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED OR BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SOLICITED OR ITS NEED WAS NOT AP PRECIATED. 2.6 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BE SET ASIDE AS NULL AND VOID AND THE NET INCOME AS PER RETURN BE ACCEPTED; OR SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS YOUR HO NORS MAY DEEM FIT, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, BE GRANTED. FINDINGS 3. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, AR HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE MY ID. PREDECESSOR WHICH WERE ENTERTAINED BY HIM AND A COPY OF THE SAME WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FURNISHING T HE REMAND REPORT. IN RESPONSE TO THE REMAND REPORT THE CONCERN ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITT ED HER REMAND REPORT VIDE LETTER NO. ACIT/CIRCLE 24(1)/REMAND REPORT/14-15/1471 DATE D 22.9.2014, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: KINDLY REFER TO YOUR OFFICE LETTER NO. CIT(A)XXIII /2013-14/111 DATED 26.08.2013 ON THE SUBJECT MENTIONED ABOVE. ITA NO.- 2402/DEL/2015. KOMAL ARORA VS. ACIT PAGE 7 OF 15 A KIND REFERENCE BE MADE TO YOUR OFFICE LETTER NO. CIT(A)XXIII/2013-14/112 DATED 26.08.2013 ASKING FOR SUBMISSION OF THE REMAND REPO RT IN CONNECTION WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE YOUR HONOUR IN THE CASE OF THE AFORESAID ASSESSEE FOR A. Y. 2009-10. IN THIS CONNECTION, A REQUISITE REMAND REPORT, AS DESIRED BY YOUR HONOUR, IS SUBMITTED HERE UNDER: 2. IN THIS CASE, THE AO HAS PASSED ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE I. T. ACT ON 20.12.2011 AT AN INCOME OF RS. 82,02,460/- AGAINST THE RETURNE D INCOME OF RS. 21,64,456/-. 3. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE AO FOUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.55,38,000/- IN HER B ANK ACCOUNT AND PURCHASED BIRLA LIFE MUTUAL FUND AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT SHE HAS DOING UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS OF CLOTH TRADING AND THE CASH SALES WERE DEPOSITED TO THE ACCOUNT BUT SHE HAS FAILED TO DISC LOSE ITS INCOME. HENCE, AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.60,38,000/- 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFO RE YOUR GOOD SELF. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW FILED THE PURCHASE BILLS, CASH BOO K AND BALANCE SHEET OF THE CLOTH BUSINESS WHICH SHE HAS NOT DISCLOSED IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. 5. TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASE OF CLOTHS FR OM M/S. MANGALAM TRADERS AMOUNTING TO RS.56,86,019/- AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASS ESSEE, A NOTICE U/S. 133(6) WAS ISSUED TO M/S. MANGLAM TRADERS, A-139, BASEMENT, MA DHU VIHAR, NEW DELHI- 110092 BUT THE SAME WAS UNDELIVERED AND RECEIVED BA CK WITH REMARK ADDRESS MOVED. HENCE, THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLOTH BUSINES S AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CONFIRMED. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOU NT OF M/S. MANGLAM TRADERS FOR TWO FINANCIAL YEARS I.E. 2008-09 AND 20 09-10 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND 2010-11. ON PERUSAL OF THIS LEDGER ACCOUNT, IT IS FOUND THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESS EE WITH M/S. MANGLAM TRADERS IS THAT OF PURCHASE ONLY. ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASES OF 149 OCCASIONS, BUT SHE HAS NOT MADE EVEN A SINGLE PAYMENT THIS YEAR. NOT ONLY THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PURCHASES I.E. 56,86,019/- REMAINED OUTSTANDING EVE N DURING THE NEXT YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2010-11 AND NOT A SINGLE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE AS SESSEE. THIS IS AGAINST HUMAN PROBABILITY AND COMMON BUSINESS PRACTICE. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED 15 SALE BILLS. ALL THE BI LLS ARE OF CASH SALES. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF DRAWING SHOWING TRANSFER OF CASH FROM BUSINESS TO DEPOSIT IN HDFC BANK. THIS SHOWS THAT W HOLE BUSINESS WAS IN CASH AND THIS PROVES THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT GENERATION OF CASH IN THE BUSINESS AND THUS THERE WAS NO HINDRANCE OR PROBLEM TO THE ASSESSEE I N PAYING THE DUES OF M/S MANGLAM TRADERS. SO, THIS WHOLE STORY OF PURCHASE A PPEARS TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT. 8. AUDIT REPORT HAS BEEN SIGNED ON 08.10.2013 I.E. ABO UT FOUR YEARS AFTER THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. THIS AUDIT REPORT SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS AN EVIDENCE OF THE ITA NO.- 2402/DEL/2015. KOMAL ARORA VS. ACIT PAGE 8 OF 15 BUSINESS. 9. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PRESENT CASE IS MOR E OF A CASE OF UNDISCLOSED MONEY, ETC UNDER 69A OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOU RCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOU NT AND IN SUCH A SITUATION WHOLE DEPOSIT SHOULD BE DEEMED AS INCOME. 10. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING AND IN THE TOTALITY OF FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FURNISHED IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE STAGE BEFORE YOUR HONOUR ARE STRONGLY OBJECTED, ON MERITS AND. I N TERMS OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULE, 1962 AND IT IS PRAYED THAT THE SAME MAY BE RE JECTED IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONFIRMED. THE GIST OF THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO IS AS UNDER : THAT GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE OF CLOTH FROM M/S MANGALAM TRADERS AMOUNTING TO RS.56,86,019/- IS DOUBTFUL AS NOTICE U /S 133(6) ISSUED BY THE AO TO THIS PARTY WAS RETURNED UNDELIVERED WITH THE REM ARKS OF THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES THAT ADDRESSEE MOVED. THAT AS PER COPY OF LEDGER FILED BEFORE THE AO IN RESPECT OF ABOVE PARTY, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT NOT A SINGLE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO THIS PARTY AS ON A.Y. 2010-11 AND WHOLE AMOUNT OF RS.56, 86,019/- WAS OUTSTANDING. ASSESSEE PRODUCED 15 SALE BILLS - ALL WERE CASH SA LES TO UNIDENTIFIED PARTIES. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, IT HAS BEEN HELD BY TH E AO THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF CLOTH WAS AN AFTER THOUGHT. EVEN AUDIT REPORT FILED WAS SIGNED ON 8.10.2013 I.E. AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED BY THE AO THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FURNI SHED BY THE LD. AR ARE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. 4.1.1 IN THE REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT, THE AR HAS S UBMITTED AS UNDER: THIS IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE REMAND REPORT DATED 22.09.2014 W.R.T. APPEAL NO. 245/11-12 FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 AND FURTHER TO T HE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS ALREADY ON RECORD. IN THIS REGARDS, THE APPELLANT R ESPECTFULLY SUBMITS AS UNDER:- 1. THE ID A.O. HAS VIDE PARA 5 ON PAGE 1 OF HER REMAND REPORT ALLEGED AS UNDER: TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASE OF CLOTH FRO M A MAJOR PARTY M/S MANGALAM TRADERS AMOUNTING TO RS. 56,86,019/- A S EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, A NOTICE U/S 133(6) WAS ISSUED TO M/S MANGALAM TRADERS, A- 139, BASEMENT, MADHU VIHAR, NEW DELHI-1 10092 BUT THE ITA NO.- 2402/DEL/2015. KOMAL ARORA VS. ACIT PAGE 9 OF 15 SAME WAS UNDELIEVERED AND RECEIVED BACK WITH REMARK ADDRESS MOVED. HENCE, THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLOTH BUSINES S AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CONFIRMED. IN THIS REGARDS, IT IS HEREBY SUBMITTED THAT THE AD DRESS OF M/S MANGALAM TRADERS, A-139, BASEMENT, MADHU VIHAR, NEW DELHI-11 0092 PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THE ONLY ADDRESS OF THE SAID PARTY AVAI LABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE AFORESAID ADDRESS IS AS PER THE BILLS ISSUED BY THE SAID PARTY AND ALSO THE SAME WAS DULY CONFIRMED BY THE PARTY IN THE LEDGER CONFI RMATION SIGNED BY IT. THE NECESSARY COPIES OF BILLS ISSUED BY HIM ALONGWITH T HE CONFIRMATION HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. THE COPIES OF THE BILLS ON SAMPLE BASIS ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH. FURTHER, IT IS HEREBY SUBMITTED THAT TRANSACTIONS W ITH M/S MANGALAM TRADERS HAD TAKEN PLACE IN THE RELEVANT YEAR ONLY AND PRESE NTLY WE ARE NOT IN CONTACT WITH THE SAID PARTY, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE DOES N OT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF ITS ADDRESS OTHER THAN THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE BIL LS ISSUED BY THE SAID PARTY I.E. M/S MANGALAM TRADERS. AS STATED EARLIER, DETAILED CONFIRMATION OF TRANSAC TIONS AND ACCOUNT BALANCES FROM M/S MANGALAM TRADERS IN THE FORM OF DULY SIGNE D LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE PARTY CONTAINING THE PAN AND ADDRESS DETAILS ALONG WITH THE COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DULY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY REQUESTED THAT THE NECESSARY VERIFICATION ABOUT THE PARTY SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT FROM ITS JURISDICTIONAL INCOME TAX WARD. 2. THE ID. A. O. HAS FURTHER ALLEGED AS UNDER VIDE PARA 6 ON PAGE 2 OF HER REPORT: THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOU NT OF M/S MANGALAM TRADERS FOR TWO FINANCIAL YEARS I.E. 2008- 09 AND 2009- 10, RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND 2010-11 . ON PERUSAL OF THIS LEDGER ACCOUNT, IT IS FOUND THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S MAN GALAM TRADERS IS THAT OF PURCHASE ONLY. ASSESEE HAD MADE PURCHASE ON 149 OCCASIONS, BUT SHE HAS NOT MADE EVEN A SINGLE PAYME NT THIS YEAR. NOT ONLY THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PURCHASES I.E. RS . 56,86,019/- REMAINED OUTSTANDING EVEN DURING THE NEXT YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2010-11 AND NOT A SINGLE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS AGAINST HUMAN PROBABILITY AND COMMON BUSINESS PRACT ICE. FIRST OF ALL, IT IS WORTHWHILE NOTICING HERE THE FA CT THAT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MERELY FILED THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF M/S MANGALAM TRADERS FOR THE REFERRED YEARS, BUT THE SAME WERE ALSO DULY SIGNED AND CONFIRMED BY THE SAID PARTY. FURTHER, NO ADVERSE INFLUENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN FROM THE FACT THAT NO PAYMENT AGAINST THE PURCHASE HAS MADE BY THE ASSESS EE. THIS IS ON ACCOUNT OF THE REASON THAT THE TERMS OF DISCHARGE O F PAYMENT DEPEND ITA NO.- 2402/DEL/2015. KOMAL ARORA VS. ACIT PAGE 10 OF 15 UPON THE DEALING BETWEEN THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN SA LES PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT BEING MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE TO THE SUPPLIER, M/S MANGALAM TRADERS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FO LLOWING REASONS: AS PER THE NORMAL PRACTICE FOLLOWED IN TRADE IN AN UNORGANIZED SECTOR, THE SUPPLIER MAKES THE SUPPLY OF GOODS ON CREDIT UP TO A CERTAIN CREDIT LIMIT. BEYOND THAT LIMIT THE BUYER STARTS BLACK MAILING TH E SUPPLIER THAT THE PAYMENT WOULD BE RELEASED ONLY WHEN THE FURTHER SUP PLIES ARE MADE. HOWEVER, WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SUPPLIER REFUSED TO MAKE FURTHER SUPPLIES UNTIL THE TIME THE ASSESSEE RELEASES THE OLD PAYMENTS. WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE WAS ARGUING THAT HE WOULD RELEASE THE PAYMENTS ONLY WHEN THE FURTHER SU PPLIES WERE MADE TO HIM. AS A RESULT, NEITHER THE SUPPLIER MADE ANY FURTHER SUPPLY NOR DID THE ASSESSEE MAKE ANY PAYMENT TO THE SUPPLIER. II. FURTHER, CERTAIN DISPUTES CONCERNING THE PRODUCT QU ALITY ISSUE HAD ALSO ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE STARTED R ECEIVING QUALITY COMPLAINTS FROM THE CUSTOMERS. THE ASSESSEE MADE RE QUEST TO THE SUPPLIER TO REPLACE THE SUBSTANDARD QUALITY GOODS WITH THE DESI RED QUALITY GOODS. HOWEVER, THE SUPPLIER REFUSED TO REPLACE THE SUB-ST ANDARD GOODS. AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE REPUTATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS NEWL Y STARTED BUSINESS DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR WAS SEVERELY AFFECTED. THE CUSTOM ERS STARTED PRESSURIZING THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE REFUND OF THE PURCHASE PRICE P AID BY THEM. AS A RESULT, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENT TO THE SUPPLI ER. MOREOVER, IT IS HEREBY SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE SUPP LIER/CREDITOR HAS DULY CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS AND OUTSTANDING BALANCE, AS PER THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED, NO ADVERSE INFLUENCE IS WARRANTED AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE. 3. THE ID. A. O. HAS VIDE PARA 7 ON PAGE 2 OF THE REMAND REPORT GROSSLY ERRED IN CASTING HIGHLY ARBITRARY AND BASELESS ALLE GATION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE 'THAT THE WHOLE STORY OF PURCHASE APPEARS TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT. THE AFORESAID ALLEGATION IS TOTALLY BASED ON SURMISE AN D CONJECTURES AND WITHOUT CONDUCTING PROPER VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS INVOLVE D IN THE CASE. THE REASON FOR NON-RELEASE OF PAYMENT TO THE SUPPLIER HAS ALRE ADY BEEN EXPLAINED ABOVE IN DETAIL. 4. THE ID. A. O. HAS VIDE PARA 8 ON PAGE 2 OF HER REMA ND REPORT CONTENDED AS UNDER: 'AUDIT REPORT HAS BEEN SIGNED ON 08.10.2013 I.E. FO UR YEARS AFTER THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. THIS AUDIT REPORT SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS AN EVIDENCE OF THE BUSINESS. IN THIS REGARDS, IT IS HEREBY SUBMITTED THAT TAX AU DIT REPORT IS BASICALLY A REPORT ISSUED BY THE AUDITOR WHO IS NOR MALLY A CHARTERED ITA NO.- 2402/DEL/2015. KOMAL ARORA VS. ACIT PAGE 11 OF 15 ACCOUNTANT AFTER CONDUCTING THOROUGH VERIFICATION O F THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO RE QUIREMENT AS SUCH UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 THAT T HE AUDIT HAS TO BE CONDUCTED IN THE YEAR OF BUSINESS ITSELF. IF THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FOUND TO BE IN ORDER , THEN THE AUDITOR CAN DULY ISSUE THE COMPLIANCE AUDIT REPORT SUBSEQUE NTLY. ALTHOUGH FOR DELAY IN OBTAINING AUDIT REPORT, SEPARATE CONSEQUEN CES ARE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE STATUTE. HOWEVER, THE ISSUE OF AUDIT REPO RT AFTER LAPSE OF THREE-FOUR YEARS CANNOT BE THE SOLE GROUND FOR REJE CTING ITS AUTHENTICITY AND CREDITABILITY AS AN EVIDENCE 5. THE LD. A. O. HAS FURTHER ALLEGED AS UNDER VIDE PARA 9 ON PAGE 2 OF HER REPORT: UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PRESENT CASE IS MOR E OF A CASE OF UNDISCLOSED MONEY, ETC UNDER 69A THAN OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXP LAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT AND IN SUCH A SITUA TION WHOLE DEPOSIT SHOULD BE DEEMED AS INCOME. FURTHER, THE LD A. O. HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONCLUDI NG THAT THE PRESENT CASE IS MORE OF A CASE OF UNDISCLOSED MONEY U/S 69A AND THE WHOLE OF AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN BANK SHOULD BE TREATED AS INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DULY CARRYING OUT THE BUSINES S OF TRADING IN CLOTH. THE AFORESAID FACT OF CONDUCT OF BUSINESS BY THE AS SESSEE IS WELL SUPPORTED BY THE GLARING EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF P URCHASE BILLS, SALES BILLS, CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT FROM THE CREDITOR I. E. M/S MANGALAM TRADERS INCLUDING HIS PAN AND ADDRESS DETAILS, DULY AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF CLOTH TRADING CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE ALON G WITH THE TAX AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS, IT IS HEREB Y PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOUL D BE DULY ADMITTED AND CONSIDERED IN TERMS OF RULE 46A AND THE ADDITION OF ' 60,38,000 MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 69A SHOULD BE DELETED BY YOUR GOODSELF IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. FURTHER, THE INCOME FROM THE SAID CLOTH BUSINESS OF ' 2,57,461 SHOULD BE ASSESSED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.1.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR AND HAV E ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND THE REMAND REPORT WITH ITS REJOINDER. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT CLAIM OF THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF CLOTH HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE AR WHEN AO ASKED THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND ITA NO.- 2402/DEL/2015. KOMAL ARORA VS. ACIT PAGE 12 OF 15 INVESTMENT IN THE MUTUAL FUNDS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. BEFORE THAT, NO SUCH SUBMISSION WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. IF THERE WAS THERE WAS NOTHING TO CONCEAL ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT, THE SAME COUL D BE DONE EVEN AFTER FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME WHEN THE APPELLANT HAD SUFFICI ENT TIME TO TAKE REMEDIAL MEASURES, AS PROVIDED IN THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME T AX ACT, 1961. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE SUBMISSIONS ARE NOTHING BUT A CONCOCTED STORY JUST TO SAY SOMETHING IN SUPPORT WHEN THERE IS NO OPTION LEFT WITH THE APPELLANT TO KEEP HERSELF AWAY FROM T HE CLUTCHES OF TAX AUTHORITIES. EVEN THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE LD. AR ARE SANS ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE. THE ALLEGED CLAIM OF MAKING PURCHASES FROM M /S MANGALAM TRADERS REMAINED UNVERIFIED AS PARTY WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT T HE GIVEN ADDRESS I.E. A-139, BASEMENT MADHU VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110092 FOR WHICH AP PELLANT IS NOW CLAIMING THAT SHE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ITS PRESENT WHEREAB OUTS. SIMPLY CLAIMING THAT CONFIRMATIONS DULY SIGNED BY THE PARTY CONTAIN ING PAN AND ADDRESS AND COPIES OF THE PURCHASE BILLS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF HAVING MADE HUGE PURCHASES FROM THE ABOVE PARTY. TH US, THE ONUS TO PROVE GENUINENESS AND SOURCE IS NOT DISCHARGED. THE VERSI ON OF THE AR ALSO CANNOT BE ACCEPTED CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WHEN SUBSTANT IAL AMOUNT IS STILL DUE TO BE PAID TO THE ABOVE PARTY, IT CANNOT BE BELIEVED T HAT THERE IS NO CONTACT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE ABOVE PARTY. THE JUST IFICATION GIVEN FOR OUTSTANDING AMOUNT IS NOTHING BUT A ROUTINE REPLY H AVING NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. A PRIMARY FACT THAT HOBBLES THE APPELLANT IS THAT T HE SOURCE OF CAPITAL IS NOT EXPLAINED PROPERLY. THE LD.AR IN THE REJOINDER HAS TRIED TO AVOID THE ONUS ON ACCOUNT OF WRONG/INCOMPLETE ADDRESS OF SUPPLIER. TH IS AUDACIOUS CONTENTION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IT IS FOR THE APPELLANT TO CORR OBORATE HIS MOTIVES AND ACTS. IT IS FOR THE APPELLANT TO ESTABLISH ITS CREDENTIAL S. IT IS PERTINENT STATE HERE THAT VIGILANTIBUS NON DORMIENTIBUS - LAW HELPS ONLY THOS E WHO ARE VIGILANT AND CAREFUL OF THEIR INTEREST. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED IN THIS DUTY CAST ON HIM BY LAW AND PRESUMES THE ONUS DISCHARGED. THIS IS NOT S O WHEN THE NOTICE OF AO ITA NO.- 2402/DEL/2015. KOMAL ARORA VS. ACIT PAGE 13 OF 15 WAS NOT SERVED ON ADDRESS GIVEN BY APPELLANT. THE L D. AR HAS ALSO NOT SOUGHT CORRECT THE FACTUAL POSITION IN REJOINDER FILED BEF ORE ME. THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE FURNISHED CORRECT POSITION AT HIS STAGE ALSO. HENCE, IT CANNOT BE PLEADED THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT AFFORDED OPPORTUNITY TO REME DY THE DEFICIENT/WRONG INFORMATION. [E] THIS PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30.01.2015 OF THE LD . CIT(A). AT THE TIME OF HEARING, REVENUE WAS REPRESENTED BY MS. RAKHI VIMAL, THE LEA RNED SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (LD. SR. DR, FOR SHORT). HOWEVER, NONE WAS PRESENT FROM THE ASSESSEES SIDE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTA TION FROM ASSESSEES SIDE, AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, WE HEARD THE LD. SR. DR; WHO RELIED UPON THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2011 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE AFORESA ID IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2015 OF THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER PERUSAL OF THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED ORDER DA TED 30.01.2015 OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED SPEAKING ORD ER ON MERITS. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY BE EN REPRODUCED IN FOREGOING PARAGRAPH [B] OF THIS ORDER. WE FIND THAT THE LD. C IT(A) HAS GIVEN DETAILED REASONS FOR HIS DECISION ON MERITS IN THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED AP PELLATE ORDER DATED 30.01.2015 OF LD. CIT(A). DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ITAT, FOR SHORT) NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT FOR OUR CONSIDE RATION TO PERSUADE US TO TAKE A VIEW DIFFERENT FROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON MERIT. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND AFTER PERUSAL OF MATERIALS O N RECORD, AND FURTHER, IN VIEW OF THE ITA NO.- 2402/DEL/2015. KOMAL ARORA VS. ACIT PAGE 14 OF 15 FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30.01.2015 OF LD. CIT(A). [F] IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, THE APPEA L FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. BEFORE WE PART; WE EXPLICITLY CLARIFY THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH ITAT FOR RESTORATION OF THE APPEAL IN ACCO RDANCE WITH PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL), RULES, 1963. IF THE ASSESSEE DOES APPROACH ITAT FOR RESTORATION OF THE APPEALS I N ITAT, THE MATTER WILL BE CONSIDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. [G] IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/10/19 SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER DATED: 04/10/19 POOJA/- COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI ITA NO.- 2402/DEL/2015. KOMAL ARORA VS. ACIT PAGE 15 OF 15 DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER