Income-tax Officer, New Delhi V. Smt. Shanaz, New Delhi

ITA 2466/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2702 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER PAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2466 /DEL/201 5 AY: 20 09 - 10 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 60(4) VIKAS BHAWAN NEW DELHI 110 002 VS . SMT. SHANAZ 4 - A, POCKET A - 2 MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE III NEW DELHI 110 096 PAN: BELPSO166P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. SURENDER PAL, SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY : NONE . DATE OF HEARING : 05.11. 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.11.2018 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER T HE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST ORDER DATED 10/02/15 PASSED BY LD.CIT(A) - 19, NEW DELHI FOR A SSESSMENT Y EAR 2010 - 11 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1 . THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE FACTS OF THE CAS E. 2 . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE IN NOIDA PLOT AMOUNTING TO RS.58 , 63 , 750/ - WHICH COULD NOT BE CO - RELATED WITH THE CASH DEPOSIT IN HDFC AND ICICI BANK S ACCOUNT . 3 . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE S PLEA RELATING TO RECEIPT OF RENT OF RS. 4,32,000/ - FROM MAYUR VIHAR AND ITA NO.2466/DEL/2015 A.Y. - 2009 - 10 ITO VS. SMT. SHANAZ 2 AZAD APARTMENT FROM APRIL, 2009 AND DECEMBER, 2009 AND DEPOSITED IN HDFC BANK ACCOUNT ON 06.11.2009, WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CO - RELATED WITH SUPPORTING RENT AGREEMENTS/ LEASE DEEDS. 4 . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE S PLEA RELATING TO RECEIPT OF RS. 4,26,420/ - FROM M/S OM DAIRY, WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN ICICI BANK ACCOUNT ON 11.05.2009, WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH. 5 . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES TO RS.5,00,000/ - WHICH APPEARS NOT BE JUSTIFIED KEEPING IN VIEW THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS OWNER OF THREE PROPERTIES AND MAINTAINING TWO LU XURY CARS FOR HER PERSONAL PURPOSES. 6 . THE APPELLANT CRAVE LEAVE TO ADD, ALLOW OR AMEND ANY/ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL.' 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: A SSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 26/ 03/11 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 4,76,004/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE A CT ) WAS ISSUED TO ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE STATUTORY NOTICES, REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSE E APPEARED BEFORE LD.AO AND FILED REQUISITE INFORMATION AS CALLED FOR. 2.1. AIR INFORMATION RECEIVED BY LD.AO REVEALS THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH TOTALLING TO RS.30,15,000/ - , IN HER HDFC BANK ACCOUNT AND DEPOSITED CASH TOTALLING TO RS.14,13,000/ - , IN HER ICICI LTD., BANK ACCOUNT. ASSESSEE WAS ACCORDINGLY CALLED UPON TO FILE THE DETAILS REGARDING THE CASH DEPOSITS. VIDE REPLY DATED 07/11/12 ASSESSEE REPLIED TO QUERY OF LD.AO. DIS SATISFIED WITH THE REPLY FILED BY ASSESSEE LD. AO MADE ADDITION UNDER ITA NO.2466/DEL/2015 A.Y. - 2009 - 10 ITO VS. SMT. SHANAZ 3 SEC TION 68 OF THE A CT AS ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE INFORMATION AS CALLED FOR. 3 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. AO ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT (A). 3.1 . LD. CIT (A) GAVE SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 5. NONE APPEARED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE TODAY. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ON THE PREVIOUS OCCASIONS ALSO NEITHER ASSESSEE NOR ANY ONE OR BEHALF OF ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED. 6. LD.SR.DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORD ER PASSED BY LD.AO . 7 . WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US ON THE BASIS OF ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LD.SR.DR. 8. ASSESSEE ALSO FILED BEFORE LD.CIT(A) EVIDENCES UNDER SECTION 46A OF I.T RULES 1962, WHICH WERE REJECTED SINCE NONE OF THESE DOCUMENTS WER E FILED BEFORE LD.AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS OBSERVED THAT BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) ASSESSEE HAS AGGRIEVED REGARDING THE DOUBLE ADDITION. L D. CIT (A) PERUSED THE BANK STATEMENTS FILED BY ASSESSEE AND WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE GRIEVANCE RAISED BY A SSESSEE OF THE RE BEING DOUBLE ADDITION AS THE SOURCE OF SUM OF THE INVESTMENTS WERE OUT OF WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SAME BANK WHICH WAS ALREADY ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE A CT. ASSESSEE EXPLAINED SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT, AMOUNTING TO RS.6 8,63,000/ - , W HICH HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY LD. CIT(A) AT LENGTH AS UNDER: 14. SOURCE EXPLAINED AS RENTAL INCOME : RS.6,96,000/ - THE APPELLANT HAD EXPLAINED PART OF THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.7,00,000/ - IN HDFC BANK ON 6.11.2009 AS FROM THE APPELLANT S RENTAL INCOME OF RS.4,32,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RENTAL ITA NO.2466/DEL/2015 A.Y. - 2009 - 10 ITO VS. SMT. SHANAZ 4 INCOME OF RS.8,40,000/ - DURING THE YEAR AND THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION FOR SOURCE OF RS.4,32,000/ - NEEDS TO BE ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.7,50,000/ - MADE ON 03.12.2009 IN HDFC BANK AS PARTLY FROM ADVANCE OF RENT OF RS.2,64,000/ - . THIS SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE APPELLANT HAD NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCES DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS REGARDING RECEIPT OF ANY RENT ADVANCE FOR RS.2,64,000/ - . FURTHER, THE APPELLANT DID NOT6 MAKE ANY SUCH CLAIMS REGARDING RECEIPT OF ADVANCE RENT BEFORE THE A.O. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS.2,64,000/ - IS SUSTAINED AS THE APPELLANT S PRESENT CLAIM REGARDING RECEIPT OF ADVANCE OF RENT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. THUS, THE APPELLANT IS GIVEN RELIEF OF RS.4,32,000/ - ONLY FROM THE ABOVE CLAIM REGARDING SOURCE FROM RENTAL INCOME OF RS.6,96,000/ - AND BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.2,64,000/ - (696000 - 432000) MADE BY A.O. IS SUSTAINED. 15. SOURCE EXPLAINED AS GIFTS FROM PARENTS: RS.6,00,000/ - THE APPELLANT HAD EXPLAINED SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.1,00,000/ - ON 17.11.2009 IN HDFC BANK AND CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.5,00,000/ - ON 26.11.2009 IN ICICI BANK AS GIFT FROM HER PARENTS. A S PER THE APPELLANT S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS DT. 16.1.2015, THE APPELLANT HAD STATED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED CASH GIFT OF RS.5,09,000/ - FROM HER FATHER VIDE HER LETTER DT. 12.12.2013. THE SOURCE OF GIFT WAS EXPLAINED AS HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, APPELLANT FILED A COPY OF GIFT DEED DT. 17.10.2010 FROM HER FATHER BUT AS THE SOURCE OF GIFT OF RS.5,09,000/ - IS NOT EXPLAINED, I AM CONSTRAINED TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 68 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT, CREDITWORTHINESS OF DONOR AND OCCASION FOR THE GIFT ETC. ARE NOT EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. MOREOVER, THE APPELLANT HAD N OT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF BALANCE GIFT OF RS.91,000/ - (RS.6,00,000 5,09,000) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION FOR THE DEPOSIT OF CASH OF RS.1,00,000/ - ON 17.11.2009 IN HDFC BANK AND THE DEPOSIT OF CASH OF RS.5,00,000/ - ON 26 .11.2009 IN ICICI BANK IS NOT ACCEPTED ITA NO.2466/DEL/2015 A.Y. - 2009 - 10 ITO VS. SMT. SHANAZ 5 AND THE ADDITION OF RS.6,00,000/ - MADE BY A.O. U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS SUSTAINED. 16. SOURCE EXPLAINED AS LOAN FROM MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD. RS.15,00,000/ - THE APPELLANT HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT O F RS.5,00,000/ - ON 4.11.2009, RS.6,00,000/ - ON 12.11.2009 AND RS.4,00,000/ - ON 13.11.2009 IN ICICI BANK AS FROM LOAN TAKEN FROM MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD FOR RS.16,00,000/ - . THE APPELLANT AHD NOT MADE ANY SUCH CLAIM DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THIS CL AIM REGARDING THE LOAN OF RS.16,00,000/ - FROM MUTHOOT FINANCE WAS MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ONLY. HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE CERTIFICATE FROM MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD. PREMISES NO.1223 AND 1224, GD COLONY, MAYUR VIHAR, PH ASE III, DELHI - 96, SHOWS THE DATE OF LOAN TAKEN AS 20.5.2009. THEREFORE, THE LOAN OF RS.16,00,000/ - TAKEN ON 20.5.2009 CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS THE EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURCE OF CASH OF RS.15,00,000/ - DEPOSITED ON 4.11.2009, 12.11.2009 AND 13.11.2009 AS THERE IS A GAP OF ABOUT 6 MONTHS BETWEEN THE DATE OF LOAN TAKEN FROM MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD. AND THE DATES OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN APPELLANT S BANK ACCOUNTS. 17. FURTHER, APPELLANT HAD STATED THAT THIS LOAN WAS TAKEN BY PLEDGING OF PERSONAL JEWELLERY AND THAT TH IS JEWELLERY WAS RELIEVED BY HER IN DECEMBER, 2009 BY PAYING AN INTEREST OF RS.1,45,644/ - TO MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD. THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THIS INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS. 1,45,644/ - . THE EXPLANATION OF TH E APPELLANT THAT THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 15,00,000/ - AS LOAN TAKEN FROM M/S. MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD. IS ONLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT AS NO SUCH EXPLANATION WAS SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT S EXPLANATION FOR SOURC E OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 5,00,000/ - ON 04.11.2009, RS. 6,00,000/ - ON 12.11.2009 AND FOR RS. 4,00,000/ - ON 13.11.2009 IN HER BANK ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND THUS THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,00,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 IS SUSTAINED. 18. SOURCE EXPLAINED AS FROM THE SALE OF DAIRY PRODUCTS: RS.7,50,000/ - ITA NO.2466/DEL/2015 A.Y. - 2009 - 10 ITO VS. SMT. SHANAZ 6 THE APPELLANT HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 7,50,000/ - MADE ON 11.05.2009 IN ICICI BANK AS FROM THE SALE OF DAIRY PRODUCTS FOR RS. 7,98,000/ - . AS PER THE APPELLANT S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS DATED 16.01.2015, THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD FILED CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. OM DAIRY FOR THE SALE OF DAIRY PRODUCTS FOR RS. 4,26,420/ - AS EVIDENCE OF SALE MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT VIDE HER LETTER DATED 16.01.2015 OFFERED A FURTHER INCOME OF RS. 39,923/ - BEING 5% OF HER INCOME FROM DAIRY BUSINESS OF RS. 7,98,467/ - UNDER SECTION 44AF OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE APPELLANT DID NOT SHOW ANY INCOME FROM DAIRY BUSINESS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HER ON 26.03.2011 AND ONLY HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME WAS SHOWN IN IT. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT FAILED TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FOR SOURCE OF BALANCE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 3,23,580/ - (750000 - 426420) MADE ON 11.05.2009 IN HER ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK. WITH REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE DAIRY BUSINESS OF R S. 4,26,420/ - , I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE GIVEN CREDIT FOR AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED ON 11.05.2009 IN HER BANK ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK. HOWEVER 5% OF THE ABOVE RECEIPT SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER SECTION 44AF OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS VIDE HER LETTER DATED 16.01.2015. THUS, A SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS. 21,320/ - (5% OF 4,26.420/ - ) UNDER SECTION 44AF AS OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 16.01.2015 IS TO BE MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS APPEAL ORDER. AS A RESULT, THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF RS. 4,26,420/ - BUT A SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS. 21,320/ - IS TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,23,580/ - MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS SUSTAINED. 19. S OURCE EXPLAINED AS FROM THE SALE OF JEWELLERY: RS. 5,00,000/ - THE APPELLANT HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH OF RS. 5,00,000/ - DEPOSITED ON 15.02.2010 IN APPELLANT S BANK ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK AS SALE OF HER PERSONAL JEWELLERY IN JANUARY, 2010. HOWEVER, APPELLANT HAD NOT SHOWN ANY LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS FROM THE SALE ITA NO.2466/DEL/2015 A.Y. - 2009 - 10 ITO VS. SMT. SHANAZ 7 OF THIS PERSONAL JEWELLERY IN HER RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON NOR FILED ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SALE OF THIS JE WELLERY DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE EVIDENCE NOW FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE SALE OF JEWELLERY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE CASH BILLS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT VERIFIABLE AS PROPER ADDRESS OF THE JEWELLERY SHOPS ARE NOT M ENTIONED ON THESE CASH BILLS NOW FILED. THEREFORE, THIS EVIDENCE NOW FILED DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND AS THESE EVIDENCES ARE NOT VERIFIABLE, THE SAME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE . THUS, I AM CONSTRAINED TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 20. SOURCE EXPLAINED AS FROM THE SALE OF LIVE STOCK: RS. 28.17.000/ - THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH OF RS. 1,68,000/ - DEPOSITED ON 06.11.2009, RS. 2,00,000/ - DEPOSITED ON 20.11.2009, RS. 6,00,000/ - DEPOSITED ON 01.12.2009, RS. 6,00,000/ - DEPOSITED ON 02.12.2009 AND RS. 4,86,0 00/ - DEPOSITED ON 03.12.2009 IN HDFC BANK, RS. 5,00,000/ - DEPOSITED ON 30.11.2009 AND RS. 2,63,000/ - DEPOSITED ON 03.12.2009 IN ICICI BANK AS OUT OF THE SALE OF LIVE STOCK. THE APPELLANT HAD NOT SHOWN ANY INCOME FROM DAIRY BUSINESS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HER ON 26.03.2011 BUT SHOWED ONLY HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME IN IT. BUT NOW THE APPELLANT IS EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 28,17,000/ - ON VARIOUS DATES AS FROM THE SALE OF THE HER LIVE STOCK FROM HER DAIRY BUSINESS. AS PER THE APPELLANT S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ON 16.01.2015, THE APPELLANT HAD FILED SALE BILLS OF LIVE STOCK AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,13,000/ - DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ON VERIFYING THE 6 SALE BILLS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SEEN THAT DATES OF THE SALES WERE 02.04.2009 AND 04.04.2009. THESE SALES OF CATTLE IN APRIL, 2009 ARE USED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN HER BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE MONTHS OF NOVEMBER AND DECEMBE R, 2009. AS THERE IS A GAP OF 7 TO 8 MONTHS BETWEEN THE SALE OF CATTLE AND THE CASH DEPOSITED IN APPELLANT S BANK ACCOUNTS, THE SALE OF CATTLE IN APRIL, 2009 CANNOT BE ITA NO.2466/DEL/2015 A.Y. - 2009 - 10 ITO VS. SMT. SHANAZ 8 CONSIDERED AS THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 2009. THUS, THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 9,13,000/ - BASED ON SALE BILLS OF LIVE STOCK AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,13,000/ - SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 21. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED FURTHER CONFIRMATIONS ABOUT THE SALE OF CAT TLE FOR RS. 15,10,000/ - DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO STATED THAT SHE IS UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY CONFIRMATION FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 7,33,230/ - . BUT THE CONFIRMATION FOR THE SALE OF CATTLE FOR RS. 15,10,000/ - NOW SUBMITTED DURING THE APPEL LATE PROCEEDINGS IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE SAME WAS NOT SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, THESE SALES OF CATTLE WERE ALSO MADE IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, MAY, JULY & SEPTEMBER, 2009 WHILE THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE BY THE APPELLANT SUB SEQUENTLY IN HER BANK ACCOUNTS DURING THE MONTHS OF NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 2009 ONLY. THEREFORE, THIS EVIDENCE FOR THE SALE OF CATTLE FOR RS. 15,10,000/ - IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS IT FAILS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN APPELLANT S BANK ACCOUNTS IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 2009. THUS, THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 28,17,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS SUSTAINED. 22. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF FOR THE SOURCE OF RS. 4,32,000/ - BEING RENT RECEIVED BY TH E APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR AND FURTHER GETS RELIEF FOR THE SOURCE OF RS. 4,26,420/ - ON THE SALE OF DAIRY PRODUCTS. THUS, THE APPELLANT GETS A TOTAL RELIEF OF RS. 8,58,420/ - (432000 + 426420) ONLY AND THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 61,69,580/ - (7028000 - 8584 20) MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS APPELLANT S UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN HER BANK ACCOUNTS IS THEREFORE SUSTAINED. FURTHER, A SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS. 21,320/ - (5% OF 4,26.420/ - ) UNDER SECTION 44AF AS OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE HER LETTER DATED 16.0 1.2015 IS TO BE MADE A BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS HER INCOME FROM DAIRY BUSINESS. 23. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - FOR LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS OF THE APPELLANT. AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN RE NTAL INCOME OF RS. 8,40,000/ - AND DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, SHE HAD ALSO PRODUCED EVIDENCE FOR DAIRY BUSINESS OF RS.4,26,420/ - . THEREFORE, ITA NO.2466/DEL/2015 A.Y. - 2009 - 10 ITO VS. SMT. SHANAZ 9 SEPARATE ADDITION MADE BY AO FOR LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THUS ADDITION OF RS.5,00, 000/ - FOR THE LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS IS DELETED. 9 . GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY REVENUE IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE DOES NOT REQUIRE ADJUDICATION. 10. GROUND NO.2 RAISED IS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.58,63,750/ - . 10.1. ON PERUSAL OF THE FINDINGS OF LD.CIT(A) REPRODUCED HEREIN ABOVE IT IS OBSERVED THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION IN PARA 24 OF HIS ORDER, REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. THUS IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THIS GROUND DOES NOT ARISE OUT OF ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED . 11. GROUND NO.3, 4, 5 : ON PERUSAL OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF LD.CIT(A) RELIEF HAS BEEN GRANTED ON VERIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY ASSESSEE. THE APPROACH OF LD.CIT(A) IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT. 11.1 . WE ARE T HEREFORE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY THESE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. 12. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ON THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOT IN APPEAL. ITA NO.2466/DEL/2015 A.Y. - 2009 - 10 ITO VS. SMT. SHANAZ 10 13 . ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE DETAILED DISCUSSIONS BY LD. CIT(A) , W E DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE SAME AND ORDER PASSED BY LD.CIT(A) IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. 13.1. ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS RA ISED BY REVENUE STAND DISMISSED AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 14. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE STANDS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 8 T H NOVEMBER, 2018. S D / - S D / - ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (BEENA A PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 0 8 T H NOVEMBER , 2018 * GMV COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR, ITAT - TRUE COPY - BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES ITA NO.2466/DEL/2015 A.Y. - 2009 - 10 ITO VS. SMT. SHANAZ 11 DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON DRAGON 06.11.18 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON & ORDER UPLOADED ON : 0 8 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 8 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.