Shri Atul Mahindru, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 279/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0139 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: B B BHAGAT
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Salary income; Earning of tax free income; Additional evidence; Tangible material
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 279 /DEL/201 0 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 2 - 0 3 SHRI ATUL MAHINDRU VS. ITO 511/2/1,RAJOKRI, WARD - 1(2), NEW DELHI. CR BUILDING , NEW DELHI PAN: A BHPM8363N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI. B. B. BHAGAT , A DV . REVENUE BY : MS. Y. KAKKAR, CIT. DR. DATE OF HEARING: 19 /05/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 TH /06/2015 ORDER PER J. S. REDDY, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) - IV, NEW DELHI, DATED 21 . 11 .20 09 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 0 3 . 2. FACTS IN BRIEF: T HE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS A M A NAGER M/S ADVANCE FINVEST (P) LTD. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.07.2002 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,56,820/ - , AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPT INCOME OF RS.52,17,613/ - . THE AO RECORDS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHOK MAHINDRU AND SONS, GURGAON, FOR THE A.Y. 2001 - 02 THAT IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE I.T.A. NO. 279/DEL/2010 2 ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED GIFTS OF RS.25,00,000/ - FROM MR. PRADEEP GUPTA S/O OF SHRI RAMESH CHAND GUPTA , R/O 3, - C COURT LANE, CIVIL LINES, DELHI. H E ALSO OBSERVED THAT OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE RECEIVED GIFTS AND THESE WERE HELD AS NON GENUINE. THE ASSESSMENT WAS OPENED U/S 1 4 7 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 ON 7.10.2005 . T HE ASSESSEE REPLIED . THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) ON 26. 12.2006 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.99,91,133/ - INTER ALIA MAKING ADDITION TOWARDS; A) GIFT RECEIVED RS.25,00,000/ - . B) D IVIDEND INCOME FROM M/S APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LTD. RS.19,08 ,813/ - . C ) DIVIDEND INCOME FROM M/S ADVANCE DETERGENT PVT. LTD RS.30,83,850/ - INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF M/S APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LTD. RS.17,16,000/ - . 3. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN A PPEAL S . THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE. HE UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 147/148 FOR REOPE NING THE CASE. I.T.A. NO. 279/DEL/2010 3 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE GIFT OF RS.25,00,000/ - RECEIVED FROM MR. PRADEEP GUPTA AND IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR PROVING THE GENUITY OF THE GIFT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT TREATING SUM OF RS.19,08,813/ - RECEIVED FROM APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AS DIVIDEND. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF DIVIDEND RECEIVED FROM APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED HAS DULY DEPOSITED DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX ON DIVIDEND PAID TO ASSESSEE. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS MADE THE ADDITION MERELY ON SUSPICION. 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT TREATING SUM OF RS.30,83,850/ - RECEIVED FROM ADVANCE DETERGENT LIMITED AS DIVIDEND INCOME. 8. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.2,24,950/ - BY NOT CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES PROVIDED FOR OTHER DIVIDEND INCOME. 9. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED WHILE DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DIVIDEND EARNED FROM ADVANCE DETERGENTS LIMITED. 10. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE AMOUNT OF LOAN OF RS.1,00,700/ - RECEIVED FROM SH. VINOD GOVIL AFTER PROVIDING THE EVIDENCES. 12. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT LOW DRAWINGS. IN VIEW OF T HE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2009 OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNJUST, IMPROPER AND BAD IN LAW AND HENCE THE SAID ORDER DATED 21.11.2009 BE SET ASIDE AND APPELLANT S APPEAL BE ALLOWED. I.T.A. NO. 279/DEL/2010 4 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI B.B. BHAGAT SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT OF TH IS CASE IS BAD IN LAW. HE FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING INTO 192 PA GES AND REFERRED TO PAGE NO. 1 , WHERE THE REASONS FOR REOPENING ARE MENTIONED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE GIFT RECEIVED FROM MR. PRADEEP GUPTA HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. HE ARGUED THAT SHRI ASHOK MAHINDRU AND SONS, GURGAON RECEIVED GIFTS FROM NON RESIDENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT IF ATUL MAHINDRU AND SONS RECEIVED NON GENUINE GIFTS , IT DOES NOT LEAD TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NON - GENUINE. HE POINTED OUT THAT MR. PRADEEP GUPTA IS NOT A NON - RESIDENT INDIAN . H E RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF SMT. MEERA KAPOO R VS. CIT IN ITA NO.1295/2008 JUDGMENT DATED 31 ST AUGUST, 2012 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN THEREIN , I F APPLIED THE FACTS OF THE CASE , WOULD LEAD TO HOLDING THAT THE REOPENING IS BAD ON LAW FOR THE REASON THAT THE ENTIRE REASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS WERE INITIATED AND WAS PROCEEDED ON VAGUE SUSPICION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL WITH THE AO BASED ON WHICH RE - OPENING WAS DONE AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KELVENITOR INDIA. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES (KOTAH) LTD. V. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 560 (SC). 6. ON MERITS , THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PAGE 3 OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER S ORDER , PARA 4 & 5 AND SUBMITTED THAT SHRI PRADEEP I.T.A. NO. 279/DEL/2010 5 GUPTA IS A VERY CLOSE FRIEND. HE FILED A NOTE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL MAY ADMIT THESE EVIDENCES. HE SUBMITTED THAT NOT ADMITTING THE EVIDENCES HAS LED TO ERRONEOUS DECISION OF TH E LD. CIT(A). HE CONTENDED THAT MR. ASHOK MAHINDRU AND SONS HAS RECEIVED GIFTS OF RS.10,63,600/ - FROM M/S THERESE MOROSINI A NON - RESIDENT AND WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE DONOR WAS INDIAN CITIZEN. HE REFERRED TO CREDITWORTHINESS OF MR. PRADEEP GUPTA AND SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD FINANCIAL CREDIBILITY. 7. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CO - EXTENSIVE POWERS AS THAT OF THE AO UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE FRESH EVIDENCE HAS TO BE LOOKED INTO A ND PROPER ADJUDICATION BE DONE. 8. ON GROUND NO. 3 TO 9 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME FROM M/S APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO . H E REFERRED PAPER BOOK PAGE 146 WHICH IS A CERTIFICATE FROM M/S APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LTD. AS WELL AS PAGES 148 TO 178 WHICH ARE COPIES OF THE ITR OF APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LTD. SHOWING PAYMENT OF DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX ETC. 9. ON DIVIDEND RECEIVED FROM M/S ADVANCE DETERGENT LTD. HE ARGUED THAT EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BUT THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN PROPER LY CONSIDERED. HE REFERRED TO THE CONFIRMATIONS RECEIVED FROM M/S ADVANCE DETERGENT LTD. A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON PAGE 192 OF ASSESSEE S I.T.A. NO. 279/DEL/2010 6 PAPER BOOK . HE ALSO DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE C OPY THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S ADVANCE DETERGENT LTD. FOR A.Y. 2001 - 02 AND COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING PAYMENT OF DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX WHICH ARE PAGES 177 TO 191 OF THE PAPER BOO K. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE INCOME TAX CASE RECORD OF M/S ADVANCE DETERGENT LTD. AND ITS ASSESSMENT WAS WITH THE SAME AO AND THAT HE HAS NOT BOTHER ED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE . HE PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD BE DELETED. 1 0 . GROUND NO. 10 IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.17,16 ,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT . HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE ADDITION IS MADE ONLY O N ASSUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT . H E LOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH THE CONFIRMATIONS GIVEN BY R.K. INVESTMENT, AT PAGES 37 TO 44 OF ASSESSEE S PAPER BOOK AS WELL AS CONFIRMATION FROM CHAND T RADING COMPANY, S.K. TRADING COMPANY AND JYOTI PRASAD SURESH CHAND , TO DRIVE HOME THE POINT THAT THERE IS NO UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT MADE. 1 1 . ON G ROUND NO. 11 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE THOUGH THE LOAN QUESTION FROM SH. VINOD GOEL , DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. 1 2 . ON GROUND NO. 12 HE REP EATED THE CONTENTION RAISED BEFORE THE AO , AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A). 1 3 . THE LD. SR. DR MS. Y. KAKKAR ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. SHE SUBMITTED THAT DEFINITE INFORMATION WAS I.T.A. NO. 279/DEL/2010 7 RECEIVED BY THE AO, WHILE DOING ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE GROUP CO NCERN S , THAT NON GENUINE GIFTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY VARIOUS PERSON OF THIS GROUP AND BASED ON THIS INFORMATION THE ASSESSMENTS WERE PROPERLY REOPENED. SHE FIRST TOOK UP THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND REFERRED TO PAGE 2 PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PAGE 4 P ARA 12 AND ARGUED THAT ON MERIT, T HE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT DESPITE PROPER OPPORTUNITY . R EFERRING TO COPY OF GIFT DEED ON PAGE 14, SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE DONE E HAS NOT SIGNED THE GIFT DEED. R EFERRING TO PAGE 15 & 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS AN UNDERTAKING FROM MR. PRADEEP GUPTA, S HE POINTED OUT THAT THIS UNDERTAK ING IS NEITHER DATED NOR THE PLACE OF EXECUTION IS GIVEN. SIMILARLY SHE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE CASE FOR UNDERTAKING FROM MR. ATUL MAHINDRU WHICH IS AT PAGE 17 & 18, NEITHER DATE NOR PLACE IS MENTIONED. SHE SUBMITTED THAT MR. PRADEEP GUPTA HAS INCOME FROM SALARY, INTEREST, RENT AND DIVIDEND AND THAT THE INCOME IS MEAGRE COMPARED TO THE AMOUNT OF GIFT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN . SHE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET , THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE CURRENT YEAR W AS NOT FILED. REFERRING TO THE COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNT, SHE SUBMITTED THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK , PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CHEQUES TO THE ASSESSEE AND ARGUED THAT THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT THE GIFTS ARE NOT GENUINE . REFERRING TO THE DATES SHE SUBMITTED THAT GIFT WAS MADE PRIOR TO CLEARANCE OF CHEQUE S. 1 4 . ON THE ISSUE OF REOPENING, SHE SUBMITTED THAT SUFFICIENCY OF THE REASONS IS NOT JUSTICEABLE AND FOR THIS PROPOSITIONS SHE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS I.T.A. NO. 279/DEL/2010 8 203 ITR 456 (SC); 236 ITR 54 (SC); 63 ITR 219 (SC) & 342 ITR 169 (DEL). SHE SUBMITTED THAT T ANGIBLE MATERIAL WAS AVAILABLE IN THE FORM OF , A PATTERN OF GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE GROUP OF ASSESSEE. ON OTHER GROUNDS SHE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A). 1 5 . ON ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SHE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND SUBMITTED THAT NO APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 1 6 . IN REPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE LETTER DATED 21 ST OCTOBER 2009 AT PAGES 12 & 13OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT A N APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THOUGH THE SAME IS NOT HAPPILY WORDED AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATE D THE SAME. 1 7 . RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD, ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, A P ERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAWS CITED WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS; 1 8 . WE FIRST TAKEN UP THE ISSUE OF REOPENING . T HE REASONS OF REOPENING ARE GIVEN AT PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK . A PERUSAL OF THIS REASONS DEMONSTRATE THAT TANGIBLE MATERIAL HAS COME INTO THE POSITION OF THE AO, IN THE FORM OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE GROUP CASE I.E. SHRI ASHOK MAHINDRU AND SONS, GURGAON . S UFFICIENTLY THE REASONS , ADMITTEDLY CANNOT BE LOOKED INTO BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE CON TENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REASONS ARE VAGUE, THAT THERE IS I.T.A. NO. 279/DEL/2010 9 NO DEFINITE IN FORMATION ETC. ARE NOT CORRECT . T HE DECISION OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. MEERA KAPOOR IS FACTUALLY DISTINGUISHABLE AS IN THAT CASE THE AO DID NOT VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED BY HIM. IT WAS A CASE WHERE THE ACIT HAD MERELY RECORDED THE FACT THAT SOME INFORMATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE ADIT(INV) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED BOGUS GIFTS. IN THE CASE ON HAND THE GROUP CONCERN OF THE A SSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE RECEIVED BOGUS GIFTS AND WAS ASSESSED A SUCH AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SHOWN THAT HE HAS RECEIVED GIFT OF RS.25,00,000/ - FROM AN UNRELATED PARTY. T HIS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE VAGUE INFORMATION. THUS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED AND RE - OPENING ASSESSMENT IS UPHELD . 19 . COMING TO MERITS OF T HE ISSUE OF GIFTS , WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF GIFT NOR THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF MR. PRADEEP GUPTA . T HE AFFIDAVITS, UNDERTAKINGS ETC. ARE SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS AND DEFICIENCY IN THE SE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LD. DR. AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF MR. PRADEEP GUPTA PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CHEQUES TO THE ASSESSEE. MR. PRADEEP GUPTA DOES NOT HAVE THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO MAKE SU CH LARGE GIFTS. THIS SOURCE OF INCOME AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT BALANCES DO NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT MR. PRADEEP GUPTA IS HAVING THE CREDITWORTHINESS TO MAKE THIS GIFT. E VIDENCE PRODUCED DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO. 279/DEL/2010 10 2 0 . WE NOW T AKE UP GROUND NOS. 3 TO 6 AND 7 TO 9 AS WELL AS GROUND NO. 10. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSIONS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS LETTER DATED 21 ST OCTOBER 2009 . T HE ASSESSEE HAD PLEADED THAT IF THE DOCUMENTS ARE TREATED AS FRESH EVIDENCE , THEY MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS THEY GO TO THE VERY ROOT OF THE MATTER. HE PLEADED FOR ADMIS SION OF THE EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) . THIS WAS NOT DONE. NO PROPER REASON IS CITED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR NOT ADDRESSING THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. 2 1 . BEFORE US OF THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM M/S APOLLO INTERNATIO NAL LTD. , M/S ADVANCE DETERGENT LTD., R.K. INVESTMENTS, CHAND TRADING CO. JYOTI PRASAD SURESH CHAND ETC., HAVE BEEN FILED. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE ALSO BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THESE DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE. WHEN THE DOCUMENTS DISCLOSE THAT DIVIDEND IS DECLARED AND DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX IS PAID , THE EVIDENCE IS CRUCIAL FOR COMING TO A CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IS DIVIDEND OR NOT. 2 2 . WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT , UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , TH ESE GROUND S HAV E TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE AO SHALL CONSIDER THESE CONFIRMATIONS COPIES OF RETURN OF INCOME ETC. AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER . IN THE RESULT GROUND NOS. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ARE SET ASIDE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. I.T.A. NO. 279/DEL/2010 11 2 3 . GROUND NO.11 IS ALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT THE LOAN IN QUESTION FROM SHRI VINOD GO VI L HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED IN THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2 4 . GROUND NO.12 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 2 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 /06/2015. SD/ - SD/ - (DIVA SINGH ) (J. S. REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30 TH /06/2015 *AK VERMA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR