Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Panchkula V. ITO, Panchkula

ITA 253/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0105 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Additional evidence
• Section: 80C; 234B; 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER& MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.342/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE ITO, VS. SH. SANJEEV KUMAR, WARD-3, S/O LATE SH. RAM PARKASH SHARMA, PANCHKULA PANCHKULA PAN NO. ADYPS6616H & ITA NO.253/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SH. SANJEEV KUMAR, VS. THE ITO, WARD-3, S/O LATE SH. RAM PARKASH SHARMA, PANCHKULA PANCHKULA PAN NO. ADYPS6616H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. S.K. MITTAL RESPONDENT BY : SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 13.04.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.04.2016 ORDER PERSANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ABOVE TITLED CROSS APPEALS ONE BY THE REVENUE A ND OTHER BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CI T(A)] DATED 30.01.2014. 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FI LED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,25,700/-. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT BY WAY OF ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE AT RS.71,00,250/-. THE AO WHILE DOING SO MADE ADDITIONS OF RS.16,41,000/- AND RS.51,50,000/- RESPECTIVELY ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ALSO DENIED DEDUCTION OF RS. 99,900/- CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80C OF THE ACT. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE AO, TH E ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A).IN THE APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPO SIT OF RS. 16,41,000/-, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD HIS HOUSE AT PANCHKULA VIDE SALE DEED DATED 28.11.2008 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 30 LAKHS. OUT OF THE SAID SALE CONSIDERATION, RS. 4,50,000/- WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH WHILE ANOTHER SUM OF RS. 25,50,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY WAY OF PAY ORDER AND THE MODE OF RE CEIPT OF THE ABOVE AMOUNTS WAS DULY MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED. THE ASSESSEE F URTHER EXPLAINED THAT A SUM OF RS. 1 LAKH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM H IS FATHER-IN-LAW SHRI PREM PARKASH SHARMA AS GIFT. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DEPOSIT ED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ALONG WITH RS. 5,000/- OUT OF HIS PERSONAL SAVINGS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 3,15,0 00/- FROM HIS MOTHER SMT. KRISHNA SHARMA, AS GIFT.THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER D EPOSITED A SUM OF RS. 85,000/- OUT OF HIS PERSONAL SAVINGS OVER THE YEARS . THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN NEED OF A CASH FOR PURCHAS E OF A NEW HOUSE AS HE HAD ALREADY SOLD HIS HOUSE AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THE ASSE SSEE ALSO EXPLAINED ABOUT THE BANK ACCOUNT ENTRY OF RS. 6,50,000/- ON10.01.2 009. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD WITHDRAWN A SUM OF RS. 8,50,000/- ON T HE SAID DATE, OUT OF WHICH HE REDEPOSITED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 6,50,000/- ON THE SA ME DATE I.E. ON 10.01. 2009 ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SMALL AMOU NTS OUT OF HIS PERSONAL 3 SAVINGS WERE DEPOSITED ON DIFFERENT DATES AGGREGATI NG RS.36000/- HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE ENTRIES IN RELATI ON TO THE DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 16,41,000/- WERE DULY EXPLAINED. WITH REGARD TO THE ANOTHER DEPOSIT OF RS. 51,50,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE E XPLAINED THAT RS. 1,00,000/- WAS DEPOSITED ON 18.7.2008 WHICH PERTAINED TO THE H OUSING LOAN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS REPAID ON 24.11.2008 THROUGH SA ME BANK AND THE RELEVANT ENTRIES WERE ALSO AVAILABLE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT STA TEMENT IN THIS RESPECT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED REGARDING THE TWO DEPOSI TS OF RS. 5 LAKHS EACH ON 18.11.2008 THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF A DVANCE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY SOLD. IT WAS E XPLAINED THAT THE TWO CHEQUES ISSUED FOR THE SAID AMOUNTS BY THE PURCHASERS WERE DISHONORED TWICE BY THE BANK FOR THE REASONS OF NON-MATCHING OF THE SIGNATURES OF THE DRAWER. THE ENTRY DATED 19.11.2008 PERTAINING TO THE RETURN OF CHEQUES WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE PURCHASER THEREAFTER AFFIXED FRESH SIGNATURES ON THE CHEQUES AND THE CHEQUES WER E PRESENTED AGAIN ON 20.11.2008, BUT, THE SAME WERE AGAIN DISHONORED AN D ENTRY WAS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN THIS RESPECT. IT WAS THEREFORE, EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS NO DEPOSIT OF THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE CREDIT AND DEBIT ENTRIES RELATING TO THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS WERE DULY REFLEC TED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. REGARDING ANOTHER DEPOSIT OF RS. 5 LAKHS, THE ASSES SEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AS UNSECURED LOAN FROM HIS FATH ERS FRIEND, SHRI M.R. SHARMA ON 18.11.2008. REGARDING ANOTHER ENTRY OF RS . 25,50,000/-, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY WAY OF PAY ORDER RECEIVED AS PART OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE HOUSE SOLD, A S NARRATED ABOVE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE LD.CIT(A) FORW ARDED THE SAID EVIDENCES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO, AFTER EXAMINING THE SAM E, SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT. THE LD.CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMIS SIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, OB SERVED THAT ASSESSEE COULD 4 NOT SUBMIT REASONABLE EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOU RCE OF SMALLER CASH DEPOSITS ON DIFFERENT DATES BETWEEN APRIL 2008 TO JULY 2008 TOTALING TO RS. 36,000/- .HE, THEREFORE CONFIRMED THE DEPOSIT OF SAID RS.36,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. THE CIT(A) ALSO DISBELIEVED THE EXPLANATION REGARD ING THE RECEIPT OF GIFT OF RS.1 LAKH BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS FATHER IN LAW. H E, THEREFORE, HELD THAT DEPOSITS OF RS. 1.05 LAKHS (RS. ONE LAKH AS GIFT AN D RS. 5,000/- OUT OF PERSONAL SAVINGS) WERE UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. REGARDING THE D EPOSIT OF RS.8,50,000/- IN CASH ON 22.11.2008, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINE D THAT RS.4,50,000/- WERE RECEIVED BY HIM AS ADVANCE FROM SALE OF PROPERTY P LUS RS.3,15,000/-AS GIFT FROM MOTHER AND RS.85,000/- AS CASH FROM PERSONAL SAVING S, THE LD CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD HIS HOUSE FOR A SALE CON SIDERATION OF RS.30 LAKHS AND THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS.4,50,000/- AS EARNEST MONEY WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE THRE E CHEQUES OF RS.5 LAKHS EACH WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASS ESSEE, OUT OF WHICH ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED REGARDING THE TWO CHEQUES DRAWN ON ID BI BANK TOWARDS ADVANCE MONEY MENTIONED FOR SALE OF PROPERTY, WHICH WERE DI SHONOURED. HOWEVER, LD.CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THIRD CHEQUES OF RS.5 LAKHS DRAWN ON PNB WAS SHOWN TO BE RECEIVED FORM SHRI MANGE RAM SHARMA , FRIEND OF THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNSECURED LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT SHRI MANGE RAM SHARMA, WHO HAD GIVEN THE CHEQUE OF RS. 5 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED LOAN, WAS IN FACT THE FATHER AND HUSBAND OF THE JOI NT PURCHASERS OF THE PROPERTY. HE, THEREFORE HELD THAT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, F AMILY MEMBER OF THE PURCHASERS WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO GIVE ANY UNSECURED L OAN TO THE VENDOR. HE, THEREFORE, TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LAKHS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS TOWARDS EARNEST MONEY RECEIVED. HE HOWEVER DISBELIEVED THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 4,50,000/- RECEIVED AS CASH ON ACCOU NT OF EARNEST MONEY AND TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. THE CIT(A) ALSO REJECTED THE THEORY OF RECEIPT OF GIFT OF RS. 31,5,000/- BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS MOTHER. THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT RS. 85,000/- WERE 5 DEPOSITED OUT OF PERSONAL SAVINGS BY THE ASSESSEE. HE, THEREFORE, TREATED THE SAID CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 85,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED C ASH CREDIT. REGARDING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO DEPOSIT OF RS. 6,50,000/-, THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE SAME OBSERVING THAT IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT STATEMENT, THE ENTRY FOR THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 6,50,000/- WAS PRIOR TO THE ENTRY OF WITHDRAWAL OF RS.8,50,000/-. HE THEREFORE, CONCLUDED THAT THE AMO UNT OF RS. 6,50,000/- WAS DEPOSITED FIRST BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER THE AMOUNT OF RS.8,50,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN BY HIM. HE, THEREFORE, TREATED THE DEPOS IT OF RS.6,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,41,000- (RS. 36,000/- + RS. 1,05,000/- + RS. 8,50,000 + RS. 6,50,000) ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 51,50,000/-, THE LD. CIT(A) ADMITT ED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 1 LAKH ON ACC OUNT OF HOUSING LOAN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO ADMITTED THE E XPLANATION REGARDING DISHONOUR OF TWO CHEQUES FOR TWO TIME OF RS. 5 LAK HS EACH AND HELD THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH DEPOSIT IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO ADMITTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 25,50,000/- BY WAY OF PAY ORDER OUT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 30LA KHS.HE, THEREFORE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 51,50,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 8 0C OF THE I.T. ACT OBSERVING THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION AMOUNTING TO RS.9 9,900/- CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF PREMIUM PAID FOR SBI LIFE PENSION PLAN WAS NOT I NCLUDED IN THE GROSS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT W AS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE THE AMOUNT WAS N OT INCLUDED IN THE GROSS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE EXPENDITUR E RELATING TO THE SAME COULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. 6 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE HAS COME IN APPEAL AGITATING THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.51,50,000/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APP EAL AGITATING THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,41,000/-. TH E ASSESSEE HAS ALSO AGITATED THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF AMOUNT OF RS. 99, 900/- CLAIMED U/S 80C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO AGITATED FOR CHARGI NG OF INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE ALS O GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS. SO FAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE OF AMOUNT OF RS . 16,41,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT OUT OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.16,41,000/-, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE RECEIP T OF RS. 1 LAKH AS GIFT FROM HIS FATHER IN LAW SHRI PREM PARKASH SHARMA. THE ASS ESSEE IN THIS RESPECT HAS NOT ONLY PRODUCED THE PAN CARD BUT ALSO A CONFIRMATION FROM THE DONOR. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS IN NEED OF MONEY TO PURCHASE THE HOUSE AND THAT IS WHY HIS CLOSE RELATIVE HAS GIVEN HIM GI FT OF SMALL AMOUNTS. IN OUR VIEW, REGARDING THE GIFT OF RS. 1 LAKH, WHEN THE DO NOR HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME, AND EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE BANK STATEME NT OF HIS FATHER IN LAW, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION THE PART OF THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES IN DISBELIEVING THE ABOVE SMALL GIFT OF RS. 1 LAKH BY THE FATHER-IN LAW OF TH E ASSESSEE TO HIM. AS REGARDS GIFT OF RS. 3,15,000/- FROM HIS MOTHER, THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT ONLY PRODUCED ON FILE THE PAN CARD OF THE MOTHER BUT ALSO A CERTIFIC ATE FROM THE PURCHASER OF JEWELLERY ALONG WITH THE ELECTION ID CARD OF THE PU RCHASER. THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,15,000/- IS NOT A BIG AMOUNT AND AN OLD AGE LA DY CAN BE SUPPOSED TO HAVE COLLECTED THE SMALL QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY DURING H ER LIFETIME AFTER SALE OF WHICH SHE HAS GIFTED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,15,000/- TO HER SON TO HELP HIM TO PURCHASE A HOUSE. THERE IS NO ADVERSE EVIDENCE ON THE FILE TO DISBELIEVE THE ABOVE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS THE S MALL DEPOSITS ON DIFFERENT 7 DATES TOTALING RS. 36,000/- ARE CONCERNED, THESE AR E MEAGER AMOUNTS DEPOSITED ON DIFFERENT DATES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO SU SPECT THAT THE SAME WERE UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. SO FAR AS THE DEPOSITS OF RS. 5000/- ALONG WITH THE RS. 1 LAKH RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS FATHE R IN LAW IS CONCERNED, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN REJECTING THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5,000/- OUT OF HIS OWN SAVINGS. HOWEVER, WE AGREE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 85,000/- AS CASH, WHICH HE HAD CLAIME D TO BE OUT OF PERSONAL SAVINGS. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN DEPOSITING SMAL L AMOUNTS ON DIFFERENT AMOUNTS (TOTALING RS. 36,000/-), THERE SEEMS NO PLA USIBLE EXPLANATION FOR DEPOSIT OF OTHER AMOUNT OF RS. 85,000/-. SO FAR AS THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 4,50,000/- IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT IT HAS BEEN P ARTICULARLY MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED ITSELF THAT ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED THE SAI D AMOUNT AS EARNEST MONEY IN CASH. THE SAID TRANSACTION IS FULLY CORROBORATED WI TH THE TERMS OF THE SALE DEED. HOWEVER, SO FAR AS THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 5 LAKHS, WHI CH THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLEGED TO HAVE RECEIVED AS UNSECURED LOAN FROM SHRI MANGE RAM SHARMA IS CONCERNED, WE AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) THAT THERE WA S NO REASON FOR SHRI MANGE RAM SHARMA WHO IS THE CLOSE RELATIVE OF THE PURCHAS ERS OF THE HOUSE IN QUESTION TO GIVE SUCH AN UNSECURED LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DEPOSIT OF THE SAID RS. 5,00,000/- THOUGH SEEMS TO BE A PART OF THE SALE CO NSIDERATIONS SINCE NOT OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TAXATION, IS TO BE TREATED AS U NEXPLAINED CREDITS. THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT IS THUS CONFIRMED AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. SO FAR AS THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 6,50 ,000/- WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 8,50,000/-, WE FIND JUSTIFIC ATION FOR THE SAME. MERELY BECAUSE THE ENTRY OF DEPOSIT IS PRIOR IN SEQUENCE T O THE ENTRY FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE MONEY THAT ITSELF IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THA T SAID DEPOSIT OF RS. 6.5 LAKHS WAS OUT OF UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE A GREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT WHY AN ASSESSEE WOULD FIRST DEPOSIT THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME INTO HIS ACCOUNT AND THEN AT THE SAME MOMENT WOULD WITHD RAW THE SAME. THE 8 EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAN D, SEEMS TO BE PLAUSIBLE TO THE EFFECT THAT ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN THE AMOUNT O F RS. 8,50,000/- AND OUT OF THE SAID AMOUNT, ON THE SAME DAY, HE REDEPOSITED TH E AMOUNT OF RS. 6,50,000/- 7. SO FAR AS THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS. 5,50,000 IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS TALLIED THE BANK STATEMENT ENTRIES AND HAS ARRIVED AT A CORRECT CONCLUSION WHILE DELETING THE SAID ADDITION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ADDITION OF RS. 85,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAI NED CASH DEPOSITS CLAIMED TO BE PERSONAL SAVINGS, RS. 5 LAKHS ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED FORM SHRI M.R. SHARMA IS UPHELD AND THE REMAINING ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DELETED. LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 2 34B & 234C IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WEL L AS OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.04.2016 SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :13 TH APRIL, 2016 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR