ITO, Rohtak V. Sh. Ram Kishan, Haryana

ITA 2762/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6843 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2762 /DEL/201 6 A.Y. : 20 0 6 - 0 7 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ROHTAK (HARYANA) VS. SH. RAM KISHAN S/O SH. HARI SINGH, VPO DABODHA KHURD TEHSIL BAHADURGARH, DISTT. JHAJJAR (PAN: DBCPK7085P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. RAKESH KUMAR, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SH. GAUTAM JAIN, ADV. ORDER THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30/1/2014 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-ROHTAK ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RU LE 46A BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FULFILL THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED UNDER RULE 46A BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER DENIED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE WAS REPEATEDLY GIVEN OPPORTUNITY BY THE AO BUT THE ASSESS EE 2 FAILED TO SUBMIT THE EVIDENCES NECESSARY FOR SUBSTANTIATION OF HIS CLAIM. 2. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 39,84,8 37/- (RS. 29,75,000 + RS. 10,09,837/-) MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS WITH BANK AS SUBSTANTIATING DETAIL S WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARIES EVIDENCES WERE NOT PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT SUPPORTIN G CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE OF SALE OF LAND AND ADVANCE RECEIVED WERE NOT PRODUCED. 3. THE AFFIDAVIT WHICH WAS PRODUCED BY ONE SH. RAJESH OF GOELA KALAN DATED 8.9.2015 AFFIRMING THAT RS. 30 LA CS WAS GIVEN AS AN ADVANCE DID NOT CARRY ANY SPECIFIC DATGE OF TRANSACTIONS ON WHICH THIS ADVANCE WAS GIVEN. 4. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING PROPERLY THE REP ORT OF THE AO WHEREIN NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT REGARDING HIS CONTENTION OF HAVING REPAID THE ADVANCE TAKEN. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DE POSITED RS. 29,75,000/- ON VARIOUS DATES DURING THE PERIOD 1.4.2005 TO 31.3.2006 WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. AO ASKED THE AS SESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS, BUT NO SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT 3 WAS GIVEN BY HIM. ACCORDINGLY, THE NOTICE U/S. 148 W AS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 28.3.2013 AFTER DULY RECORDING THE R EASONS FOR ESCAPEMENT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2006-07 VIDE THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, B UT NO RETURN FOR THE AFORESAID YEAR WAS FILED BY HIM. VARIOUS STA TUTORY NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT HE DID NOT RESPOND TO I T. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 AN D MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,75,000/- AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLO SED SOURCES. AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASS ESSEE THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN INTEREST OF RS. 8631/- FRO M HARYANA GRAMIN BANK, NUNA MAJRA. BESIDES THIS CREDIT ENTRIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,09,837/- ARE ALSO THERE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED HIS R ETURN OF INCOME AND NOR SHOWN THESE AMOUNTS AT HIS INCOME NOR ANY EXP LANATION HAS BEEN FURNISHED, HENCE, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10,18,46 8/- WAS ALSO ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSMENT AT RS. 39,93,470/- WAS ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 144/147 OF T HE I.T. ACT, 1961 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.01.2014. 3. AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASS ESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.3.2016 HAS DELETED SOME ADDITIONS AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS AND REQUESTED THAT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE MAY BE ALLOW ED. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER WHICH NEEDS TO BE UPHELD AND AC CORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. 6.1 WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 1 RELATING TO ADMISSI ON OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IS CONCERNED HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE REMAN D REPORT DATED 23.12.2015 NO OBJECTION WAS RAISED BY THE AO T O OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND, THEREFORE, PLEA IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND, HENCE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND NO. 1 MAY BE REJECTED. HE FURTHER STATED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, I F AN ORDER FRAMED U/S. 144 OF THE ACT, ONCE A REMAND REPORT IS P ASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND, THE AO ON THE BASIS THEREOF GRANTS O PPORTUNITY AND, CONSIDER SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND ALSO FILED A REPORT ON THE SAME (WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION) THE GROUND NOW RAISED IS UNTENABLE. TO SUPPORT THIS CONTENTION, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSE E RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 5 - 231 ITR 1 (BOM) SMT. PRABHAVATI S. SHAH VS. CIT - 26 ITD 236 (DEL) ELECTRA JAIPUR (P) LTD. VS. IAC - 121 TTJ 269 (JAIPUR) ANMOL COLOURS (INDIA) (P) LTD. VS. ITO 6.2 WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 2 TO 4 RELATING TO ADDI TION OF RS. 29,75,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH D EPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT WITH HARYANA GRAMIN BANK, NUNA MAJRA AND AD DITION OF RS. 10,09,837/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CREDIT S/ ENTRIES IN BANK ACCOUNT WITH HARYANA GRAMIN BANK, NUNA MAJRA I S CONCERNED, THE LD. COUNSEL STATED THAT CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 29, 85,000/- IN BANK ACCOUNT NO. 5401 WITH HARYANA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN B ANK, NUNA MAJRA WERE DEPOSITED AND EXPLANATION THEREOF IS THAT AMOUNT REPRESENTS ADVANCE TOWARDS SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM SH. RAJESH S/O RAJENDER SINGH R/O VILLAGE GOELA KALAN T EHSIL BAHADURGARH, JHAJJAR, HARYANA WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED BY FILING THE AFFIDAVIT OF SH. RAJESH (PAGE NO. 4 OF THE PB); RATIO N CARD OF SH. RAJENDER SINGH (FATHER OF SHRI RAJESH) (PAGE NO. 5 O F THE PB); DRIVING LICENSE OF SH. RAJESH (PAGE NO. 6 OF THE PB) ; AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 2.2.2006 (PAGE NO. 7 TO 9 OF THE PB); COP Y OF BANK 6 STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE (PAGE NO. 10 TO 14 OF THE PB). HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT DID NOT DISPUTE T HE EVIDENCES OTHER THAN TO ALLEGE THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS P RODUCED REGARDING REPAYMENT AND IN THE PROCESS HE OVERLOOK ED THAT IN THE AFFIDAVIT IT WAS STATED THAT REPAYMENT WERE MADE IN MAR CH, 2006 AND JUNE, 2006 OF RS. 18.00 LACS AND RS. 12 LACS RE PAID. HENCE, HE REQUESTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,75,000/- I N DISPUTE. 6.3 WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS. 10,09,837 IS CO NCERNED, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT CASH DEPOSITS OF R S. 10,09,837/- IN BANK ACCOUNT NO. 5401 WITH HARYANA KS HETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, NUNA MAJRA WERE DEPOSITED AND EXPLANATI ON THEREOF IS THE SAME REPRESENTS THE CONSIDERATION OF SALE OF AG RICULTURE LAND AND ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER ENTRY. HE FURTHER STATED THA T EVIDENCE WERE ON RECORD I.E. SALE DEED DATED 7.2.2006 IN RE SPECT OF LAND SOLD BY ASSESSEE (PAGE NO. 16-22 OF THE PAPER BOOK) AND N AKAL JAMABANDHI (PAGE NO. 15 OF THE PB). HENCE, HE SUBMI TTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ENTRIES RELATE TO CHEQUE DEPOSITS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF SALE OF LAND. THE AO H AS MADE NO EFFORT TO DISPROVE THE ASSESSEE CLAIM. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THE ASSESSEE, I D ELETE THE ADDITION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,09,837/- MAY ALSO BE DELET ED. 7 7. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE REC ORDS, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT( A). I FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ELABORATELY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN DI SPUTE AT PAGE NO. 2 TO 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER:- THE 4TH GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS. 2975000/- ON A/C OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK. THE APPEL LANT HAD ENTERED INTO IN AN AGREEMENT WITH ONE SH. RAJESH S/O SH. RAJENDER SINGH FOR SALE OF HIS ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR RS. 60 LACS AND ADVANCE OF RS . 30 LACS WAS RECEIVED ON DIFFERENT DATES AS MENTIONED IN AGREEMENT TO SELL AND COPY OF THE SAME WAS FILED BEF ORE THE AO IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT DT. 23.12.2015 HAS ADMITTED THIS FACT AND AFFIDAV IT OF THE PURCHASER WAS ALSO OBTAINED BY THE AO. AN AFFIDAVIT IS A VALID PIECE OF EVIDENCE AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF PA RIKH AND CO VS CIT REPORTED AT 30 ITR 181. THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA WAS FOLLOWED BY THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SOHAN LAL GUPTA VS CIT REPORTED AT 33 ITR 786. THU S, THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS OF RS. 2975000/- STOOD PROVED AND 8 AS SUCH YOUR GOOD SELF IS PRAYED TO PLEASE DELETE TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. I HAVE EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO DATED 30.12.2015. THE AO HAS ADMITTED TO THE FACT OF THE AFFIDAVIT, DATED 8.9.2015, AFFECTI NG THE REPAYMENT. THE AO HAS HOWEVER MERELY STATED THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED REGARDING THE REPAYMENT, BUT NO EFFORTS WERE MADE BY HIM. FILING OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE FACT THE AO HAS MADE NO EFFORT TO PROVE THAT IT IS FALSE , MAKES THE ADDITION CONTENTIOUS. I, THEREFORE, DELETE THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE 5TH GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS. 10,09,837/- RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES. DURING THE YEA R UNDER APPEAL THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD PART OF HIS ANCES TRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND ALONG WITH HIS OTHER FAMILY MEMBER S FOR RS. 32,55,000/- AND THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED TWO CHEQUES OF RS. 945000/- (708750.00+236250.00) AS HI S SHARE. THE OTHER CREDIT ENTRY OF RS. 64837/- ON 18.05.2005 IS ON ALC TRANSFER FROM BC 334. THE AO HA D NOT BOTHERED TO VERIFY FROM BANK. THE CREDIT ENTRY IN THE 9 BANK WERE FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURE LAN D AND TRANSFER ENTRIES AND AS SUCH THE ADDITION OF 1009837/ - MADE BY THE AO MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. THE ENTRIES RELATE TO CHEQUE DEPOSITS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF SALE OF LAND. THE AO HAS MAD E NO EFFORT TO DISPROVE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THE ASSESSEE, I DELETE THE SAID ADDITION. THIS GROUND O F APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE RECORDS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 1 ADM ISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IS CONCERNED, I FIND THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 23.12.2015 NO OBJECTION WAS RAISED BY THE AO T O OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND, THEREFORE, PLEA IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. EVEN OTHERWISE, IF ORDER FRAMED U/S. 144 OF THE ACT, ONCE A REMAND REPORT IS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND , THE AO ON THE BASIS THEREOF GRANTS OPPORTUNITY AND, CONSIDER SU CH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND ALSO FILED A REPORT ON THE SAME (WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION) THE GROUND RELATING TO ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT THIS JUNCTURE IS NOT JUSTIFIED, HENCE, THE GROUND NO. 1 IS HEREBY REJECTED. MY AFORESAID VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING DEC ISIONS:- 10 - 231 ITR 1 (BOM) SMT. PRABHAVATI S. SHAH VS. CIT WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 'ON A PLAIN READING OF RULE 46A, IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS RULE IS INTENDED TO PUT FETTERS ON THE RIGHT OF THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ANY EVIDENCE. WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY, OTHER THAN THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXCEPT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SET OUT THEREIN. IT DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE POWERS OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRY OR TO DIRECT THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRY AND TO REPORT THE RESULT OF THE SAME TO HIM. THIS POSITION HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR BY SUB-RULE (4) WHICH SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT THE RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON THE PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE 11 APPELLANT WOULD NOT AFFECT THE POWERS OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TO CALL FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENT OR THE EXAMINATION OF ANY WITNESS TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL. UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 250 OF THE ACT, THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IS EMPOWERED TO MAKE SUCH FURTHER INQUIRY AS HE THINKS FIT OR TO DIRECT THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRY AND TO REPORT THE RESULT OF THE SAME TO HIM. SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 250 OF THE ACT EMPOWERS THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TO ALLOW THE APPELLANT, AT THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, TO GO INTO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL NOT SPECIFIED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ON HIS BEING SATISFIED THAT THE OMISSION ON THE GROUND FROM THE FORM OF APPEAL WAS NOT WILLFUL. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE PROVISIONS THAT THE POWERS OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ARE 12 MUCH WIDER THAN THE POWERS OF AN ORDINARY COURT OF APPEAL. THE SCOPE OF HIS POWERS IS CONTERMINOUS WITH THAT OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER. HE CAN DO WHAT THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER CAN DO. HE CAN ALSO DIRECT THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO DO WHAT HE FAILED TO DO. THE POWER CONFERRED ON THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 250 BEING A QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER, IT IS INCUMBENT ON HIM TO EXERCISE THE SAME IF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFY. IF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FAILS TO EXERCISE HIS DISCRETION JUDICIALLY, AND ARBITRARILY REFUSES TO MAKE ENQUIRY IN A CASE WHERE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SO DEMAND, HIS ACTION WOULD BE OPEN FOR CORRECTION BY A HIGHER AUTHORITY.' - 26 ITD 236 (DEL) ELECTRA JAIPUR (P) LTD. VS. IAC WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT IT IS INCORRECT TO SHUT OUT AN ASSESSEE IN THE 13 PROCESS OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FROM LOADING EVIDENCE TO PROVE ITS CASE. 8.1 WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS. 29,75,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT WITH HARYANA GRAMIN BANK, NUNA MAJRA IS CONCERNED, I FIND THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO IN AN AGREEMENT WITH ONE SH. RAJESH S/O SH. RAJENDER SINGH FOR SALE OF HIS ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR RS. 60 LACS AND ADVANCE OF RS. 30 LACS WAS RECEIVED ON DIFFERENT DA TES AS MENTIONED IN AGREEMENT TO SELL AND COPY OF THE SAME WAS FILED B EFORE THE AO IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT DT. 23.12.2015 HAS ADMITTED THIS FACT AND AFFIDAVIT OF THE PURCHASER WA S ALSO OBTAINED BY THE AO. AN AFFIDAVIT IS A VALID PIECE OF E VIDENCE AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN TH E CASE OF PARIKH AND CO VS CIT REPORTED AT 30 ITR 181. THE ABOV E JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA WAS FOLLOWED BY TH E HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SOHAN LAL GUPTA V S CIT REPORTED AT 33 ITR 786. THE AO HAS ADMITTED TO THE FACT OF THE AFF IDAVIT, DATED 8.9.2015, AFFECTING THE REPAYMENT. THE AO HAS H OWEVER MERELY STATED THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED REGARDING THE REPAYMENT, BUT NO EFFORTS WERE MADE BY HIM. FILING OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE FACT THE AO HAS MADE NO EFFORT TO PROVE THAT IT IS FALSE, MAKES THE ADDITION CONTENTIOUS. HENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY 14 DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,75,000/- WHICH DOES N OT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON MY PART, HENCE, I UPHOLD THE SAME. 8.2 WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS. 10,09,837 IS CO NCERNED, I FIND THAT AO HAS ADMITTED TO THE FACT OF THE AFFIDAVIT, DATED 8.9.2015, AFFECTING THE REPAYMENT. THE AO HAS HOWEVER MERELY STA TED THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED REGARDING THE REPAYMENT, BUT N O EFFORTS WERE MADE BY HIM. FILING OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE FACT THE AO HAS MADE NO EFFORT TO PROVE THAT IT IS FALSE, MAKES THE ADD ITION CONTENTIOUS. THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,09,837/- RECEIVE D THROUGH CHEQUES. DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE ASSESSE HA D SOLD PART OF HIS ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND ALONG WITH HIS OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS FOR RS. 32,55,000/- AND THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED TWO CHEQUES OF RS. 945000/- (708750.00+236250.00) AS HIS SHARE. TH E OTHER CREDIT ENTRY OF RS. 64837/- ON 18.05.2005 IS ON ALC TRANSFER FROM BC 334. THE AO HAD NOT BOTHERED TO VERIFY FROM BANK. TH E CREDIT ENTRY IN THE BANK WERE FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULT URE LAND AND TRANSFER ENTRIES. THE ENTRIES RELATE TO CHEQUE DEPOSITS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF SALE OF LAND. THE AO HAS MAD E NO EFFORT TO DISPROVE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. IN VIEW OF THE FACT TH AT THERE IS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, LD . CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON MY PART, HENCE, I UPHOLD THE SAME. 15 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/02/2017. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 13/02/2017 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES