Sh. Rajinder Singh, Faridabad V. ITO, Faridabad

ITA 2789/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 278920114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 27-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S MINHAS
• Assessee Lawyers: S K BANSAL
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH F FF F : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO.2789/DEL/2011 2789/DEL/2011 2789/DEL/2011 2789/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2007 2007 2007 2007- -- -08 0808 08 SHRI RAJINDER SINGH, SHRI RAJINDER SINGH, SHRI RAJINDER SINGH, SHRI RAJINDER SINGH, C/O AGRAWAL SANTOSH K & C/O AGRAWAL SANTOSH K & C/O AGRAWAL SANTOSH K & C/O AGRAWAL SANTOSH K & ASSOCIATES, ASSOCIATES, ASSOCIATES, ASSOCIATES, B BB B- -- -504, FIRST FLOOR, 504, FIRST FLOOR, 504, FIRST FLOOR, 504, FIRST FLOOR, NEHRU GROUND, NEHRU GROUND, NEHRU GROUND, NEHRU GROUND, NIT, FARIDABAD. NIT, FARIDABAD. NIT, FARIDABAD. NIT, FARIDABAD. PAN : ACXPS3726J. PAN : ACXPS3726J. PAN : ACXPS3726J. PAN : ACXPS3726J. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -II(2), II(2), II(2), II(2), FARIDABAD. FARIDABAD. FARIDABAD. FARIDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K.BANSAL, CA. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S.MINHAS, DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G. PER G. PER G. PER G.D.AGRAWAL D.AGRAWAL D.AGRAWAL D.AGRAWAL, , , , VP VPVP VP : : : : IN THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY [CIT(A) FAR IDABAD] IS ERRED IN MAKING THE APPELLATE ORDER BY CONFIRMING T HE ADDITIONS OF RS.7,90,000, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER [ITO, WARD II(1), FARIDABAD]. 2. THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE PR ESENT CASE ERRED IN STATING THAT HE HAS FOUND NO INFIRMIT Y IN THE ACTION OF AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.7,90,000 ON A CCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT. ITA-2789/DEL/2011 2 3. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN NOT TREA TING THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT O F THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH CREDIT, AS SUFFICIENT. 4. THAT THE ASSESSEE PRAYS THE GRANT OF PERMISSION TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, REVISE, SUBSTITUTE, DELETE OR MO DIFY ANY OR ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR/AND PRAYER MADE AT ANYTIME ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS STATED B Y THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM TRADI NG OF SHOES. THAT ON 08.05.2006, THERE WAS CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 7,90,000/- IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE AS SESSING OFFICER TREATED THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK AS UNEXPLAINED AND MADE THE ADDITION THERE FOR AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURC ES. 3. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT AND DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALSO THE COPY OF CASH BOOK UP TO 10.05.2006. THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DI D NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS A CASH SALES WHICH IS NOT PROVED. MOREOVER, ON 07.04.2006, THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN THE SUM OF ` 3 LAKHS FROM THE BANK. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICI ENT CASH BALANCE, THERE WAS NO NECESSITY OF WITHDRAWING ` 3 LAKHS FROM THE BANK. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY EXPLAINED THE ABOVE A LLEGED DISCREPANCY POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 21.02.2011 WHIC H IS REPRODUCED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AT PAGES 8 & 9. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE TOTAL CASH SALES UP TO 08.05.2006 I.E. THE DATE ON WHICH CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK WAS ONLY ` 1,49,820/-. THAT THE SALE IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE INCOME, THEREFORE, EVEN IF SALE IS ALLEGED TO BE ITA-2789/DEL/2011 3 UNVERIFIABLE, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE FOR THE U NDISCLOSED INCOME. HE HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE COPY OF CASH BOOK WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 40 TO 46 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK SO AS TO POIN T OUT THAT THE SUM OF ` 7,90,000/- IS DULY DEBITED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 4. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON T HE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS. EVEN IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, ONLY A PART OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WA S PRODUCED. MOREOVER, IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POINTED OUT SEVERAL DISCREPANCIES IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IS QUITE FAIR AND JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE SUB MISSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER THE REMAND REPORT DATED 02 .02.2011 IS AS UNDER:- I) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK. IN REPLY THE ASSESSEE STATED TH AT HE DEALS IN THE SHOES TRADING AND HIS COLLECTIONS ARE IN CASH AND PAYMENTS IN CHEQUES. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT TH E DEPOSIT OF CASH INTO BANK IS OUT OF CASH SALES AND COLLECTI ONS FROM DEBTORS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE CASH BO OK, LEDGER AND OTHER RELEVANT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VOU CHERS, WHICH MAY PROVE HIS STAND THAT HE WAS HAVING SUFFIC IENT CASH FOR DEPOSIT IN THE BANK. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND EVEN THE CASH BOOK FO R THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ITA-2789/DEL/2011 4 DURING THE COURSE OF SUBMISSION OF REPORT/COMMENTS AS PER YOUR HONORS DIRECTIONS, THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN ASK ED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT O F HIS VERSION AS TAKEN IN APPEAL. THE ASSESSED FURNISHED COPY OF CASH BOOK FROM 01.04.2006 TO 10.05.2006 BUT TO PROV E THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH BOOK, IN SPITE OF AFFORDING OPPORTUNITIES, HE COULD NOT PRODUCE VOUCHERS AND SA LE BILLS PRIOR TO THE PERIOD OF DEPOSIT OF CASH IN THE BANK, WHICH MAY PROVE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, HE HAS FURNISHED CERTAIN STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS AFTER OBTAI NING FROM THE VARIOUS PARTIES. IN THE ABSENCE OF VOUCHE RS, WHICH ARE RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK, BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. ADDITION OF RS.7,90,000/- W AS CORRECTLY MADE. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT ON THE ON E SIDE THE ASSESSING IS SHOWING SUFFICIENT CASH IN HAND AS PER DOCUMENT FURNISHED AS CASH BOOK AND ON THE OTHER SI DE HE HAS SHOWN WITHDRAWAL OF RS.3,00,000/- FROM THE BANK ON 07.04.2006. SECONDLY THE ASSESSED HAS SHOWN CASH A S PER DOCUMENT AND CHEQUE OF RS.1,50,000/- WAS REJECTED D UE TO INSUFFICIENT FUNDS. IT MEANS THAT THE DOCUMENT FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RELIABLE. 6. WHEN THE ABOVE REMAND REPORT WAS CONFRONTED BY T HE CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSEE, HE ALSO FURNISHED A WRITTEN SUBMISSIO N DATED 21.02.2011 WHICH IS ALSO REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER . FOR READY REFERENCE, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 1. THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT AND AGAIN DURING THE COURSE OF SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS/REPORTS IN CONNECTION TO THE ABOVE SAID MA TTER THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S ITA-2789/DEL/2011 5 INCLUDING CASH BOOK, LEDGER, CASH MEMOS, VOUCHERS E TC. FOR THE PERUSAL OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THAT HE HAS SUBMITTED COMPLETE PRINTOUT OF THE C ASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2006 TO 10.05.2006 TO JUSTIFY THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH BALA NCE OF RS.7,90,000 FOR DEPOSIT INTO THE BANK ON 08-05-2006 . 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED TO THE LD. ASSES SING OFFICER A DETAIL OF TOTAL CASH RECEIVED FROM 01-04- 2006 TO 08-05-2006 FROM THE VARIOUS PARTIES. 4. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED TO THE LEAR NED ASSESSING OFFICER THE CONFIRMATIONS OF ACCOUNTS FRO M THE MOST OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM HE HAS RECEIVED CASH DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. 5. THAT REGARDING THE PRODUCTION OF BILLS AND VOUCH ERS PRIOR TO THE PERIOD OF DEPOSIT OF CASH INTO BANK, T HE ASSESSEE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT HE HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE CASH MEMOS, BILLS, VOUCHERS FOR THE EXPENSES ETC. ONLY COPIES OF A FEW CASH MEMOS FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2006 COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BY HIM AS THE SAME COULD NOT BE TRACED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ENQUIRY BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESS EE WAS CLOSED AND SOME OF CASH MEMOS WERE NOT TRACEABLE BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE PR INTOUT OF THE CASH BOOK FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD IN WHICH S ERIAL NUMBER OF ALL THE CASH MEMOS WERE MENTIONED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED COPIES OF ACKNOWLEDGEME NTS OF SALES TAX RETURNS WHICH WERE SUBMITTED TO THE SA LES TAX ITA-2789/DEL/2011 6 DEPARTMENT. THIS SALES TAX RETURN FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE INCLUDING ALL THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BOTH C ASH SALES AND CREDIT SALES. THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED THE LD. AO TWO MORE DAYS TIME TO PROCURE THE DETAILED SALES TAX RETURN FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT WHICH INCLUDED BOTH CASH SALES AND CREDIT SALES. BUT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FINALIZED HIS REPORT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TWO MORE DAYS TIME. THE COPY OF REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSE SSEE TO THE LD. AO IS ATTACHED HEREWITH THIS REPLY. 6. THUS YOUR HONOUR SHALL APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD PRODUCED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE AVAI LABILITY OF CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.7,90,000 ON WHICH DATE THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED INTO BANK. REGARDING THE CASH WITHDR AWAL OF RS.300000 ON DATED 07.04.2006, THE ASSESSEE WOUL D LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT ON DATED 07.04.2006 THE OPENING BALA NCE OF CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.30158 AND C LOSING BALANCE WAS RS.16658. THE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH HAD WITHDRAWN CASH RS.3,00,000 ON ACCOUNT OF SOME PURCH ASES TO BE MADE IN CASH BUT WHEN THE AMOUNT COULD NOT BE UTILIZED BY HIM, HE HAS DEPOSITED THE SAME ALONG WI TH 50000 OUT OF THE CASH RECEIPT DURING THE DAY AGAIN INTO THE BANK ON THE SAME DAY. SO WITHDRAWAL OF RS.3,00,000 FROM THE BANK AND DEPOSIT OF RS.350000 ON THE SAME DAY I NTO THE BANK NULLIFIES THE TRANSACTION. THE NET RESULT OF THESE TWO TRANSACTIONS IS DEPOSIT OF RS.50000 INTO THE BA NK. 7. THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY COMMENT REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,64,000 UNDE R SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE PRETE XT THAT THE SAME HAS ALREADY DISCUSSED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ITA-2789/DEL/2011 7 ACT, 1961. REGARDING THIS WE WOULD LIKE TO SAY THA T WE HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 AS THESE ARE NOT ACTUALLY CASH CREDIT FOU ND IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE INTENTION BEHIND THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT TO ACCEPT CASH CREDIT BY THE AS SESSEE BUT TO INVEST SOME AMOUNT IN THE COMPANY OF THE PAR TY BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE COPY OF THE CASH BOOK FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNI NG FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2006 TO 8 TH MAY, 2006 IS ALSO PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PA PER BOOK WHICH IS AT PAGES 40 TO 44 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE A LSO GAVE THE SUMMARY OF SUCH CASH BOOK WHICH READS AS UNDER:- CASH FLOW STATEMENT FROM 01.04.2006 TO 08.05.2006 PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS.) OPENING BALANCE OF CASH 359810 INFLOW OF CASH CASH RECEIVED FROM SUNDRY DEBTORS 1448653 (FROM 01.04.2006 TO 07.05.2006) CASH SALES 149820 (FROM 01.04.2006 TO 07.05.2006) CASH WITHDRAWN FROM BANK 362000 1960473 (FROM 01.04.2006 TO 07.05.2006) ------------ 2320283 OUTFLOW OF CASH CASH PAID TO CREDITORS 80530 CASH DEPOSITED INTO BANK 1378745 1459275 CASH IN HAND IN THE MORNING OF 07.05.2006 86100 8 CASH RECEIVED FROM SUNDRY DEBTORS 20000 (ON 08-05-2006) CASH SALES AS ON 08.05.2006 4030 -------------- TOTAL 885038 CASH DEPOSITED INTO BANK ON 08-05-2006 825000 (35000 + 790000) CASH IN HAND ON 08.05.2006 60038 ITA-2789/DEL/2011 8 8. AFTER THE PERUSAL OF ABOVE MATERIAL, WE FIND THAT I N THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HAND ON 08.05.2006 MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PR ODUCE VOUCHERS AND SALES BILLS PRIOR TO THE PERIOD OF DEPOSIT OF C ASH IN BANK. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW HUGE SUM OF ` 3 LAKHS FROM THE BANK ON 07.04.2006 WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED T O HAVE SUBSTANTIAL CASH BALANCE. WITH REGARD TO FIRST POI NT, WE FIND THAT THE TOTAL CASH SALES FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2006 TO 08.05 .2006 IS ONLY ` 1,49,820/-. THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM TRADI NG OF SHOES. THEREFORE, THE CASH SALES OF ` 1,49,820/- IN A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH AND EIGHT DAYS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNREASONABLE OR WHI CH SHOULD BE DOUBTED. MOREOVER, WE FIND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISTURBED THE TRADING ACC OUNT, MEANING THEREBY, THAT THE TOTAL SALES AS DISCLOSED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS DULY ACCEPTED. MOREOVER, THE CASH SA LE IS ALREADY AN ITEM OF INCOME IN THE ASSESSEES PROFIT & LOSS ACCO UNT. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DOUBTING THE GENUINENESS OF SALES, IT ME ANS THAT IF THE SALE IS HELD TO BE BOGUS OR HAD NOT ACTUALLY TAKEN PLACE, T HEN IT WILL ONLY REDUCE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF ABOVE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO HOLD THA T THE SALES ARE NOT PROVED. 9. THE OTHER AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REC EIVED FROM SUNDRY DEBTORS WHICH WAS OUT OF THE SALES MADE IN T HE PRECEDING YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE R ECEIPT FROM THE SUNDRY DEBTORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO QUE STIONED WHY THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW THE SUM OF ` 3,00,000/- FROM THE BANK ON 07.04.2006. IN THE WRITTEN EXPLANATION FURNISHED B EFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), IT IS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CA SH BALANCE AS ON 07.04.2006 WAS ONLY ` 30,158/-. THE ASSESSEE FELT THAT SOME CASH WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR PURCHASES. HOWEVER, WHEN THE CASH RECEIVED ITA-2789/DEL/2011 9 FROM THE BANK COULD NOT BE UTILIZED FOR ANY WORK, T HE SAME WAS REDEPOSITED IN THE BANK ON THE SAME DAY. THUS, EFF ECTIVELY, ON 07.04.2006, THE NET CASH OF ` 50,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ( ` 3,00,000 WITHDRAWN AND ` 3,50,000 DEPOSITED). WE HAVE ALSO SEEN THE COPY OF THE CASH BOOK FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2006 TO 08.05.2006 PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AND, WE FIND THAT EVEN BEF ORE 08.05.2006, SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF ` 3,50,000/- AND ` 2,00,000/- WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK TIME AND AGAIN, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS NEVER DOUBTED. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE ON 08 .05.2006 TO ENABLE IT TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF ` 7,90,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION OF ` 7,90,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST AUGUST, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( (( (RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV) )) ) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 31.08.2012 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : SHRI RAJINDER SINGH, SHRI RAJINDER SINGH, SHRI RAJINDER SINGH, SHRI RAJINDER SINGH, C/O AGRAWAL SANTOSH K & C/O AGRAWAL SANTOSH K & C/O AGRAWAL SANTOSH K & C/O AGRAWAL SANTOSH K & ASSOCIATES, ASSOCIATES, ASSOCIATES, ASSOCIATES, B BB B- -- -504, FIRST 504, FIRST 504, FIRST 504, FIRST FLOOR, NEHRU GROUND, FLOOR, NEHRU GROUND, FLOOR, NEHRU GROUND, FLOOR, NEHRU GROUND, NIT, FARIDABAD. NIT, FARIDABAD. NIT, FARIDABAD. NIT, FARIDABAD. 2. RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -II(2), FARIDABAD. II(2), FARIDABAD. II(2), FARIDABAD. II(2), FARIDABAD. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR