Alok B. Mathur, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3220/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3646 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-05-2010
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS PRATIMA KAUSHIK
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAM SAMUIJH
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 234B; 147; 148; 144; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, VICE PRESIDENT A ND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO. 3220/DEL/09 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 SHRI ALOK B MATHUR, 419, ANSAL CHAMBERS-II, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI. VS. ITO WARD 37 (3) NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: DR. RAM SAMUIJH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: MRS. PRATIMA KAUSHIK, SR. DR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, JM: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 27 TH JUNE, 2009 PASSED FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02. GROUND NO. 1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. IT DOES NOT REQU IRE ANY SPECIFIC FINDING TO BE RECORDED. HENCE IT IS REJECTED. 2. IN GROUND NO. 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ASSESSING THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AT RS. 35 ,45,980/-. ITA NO. 3220/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 2 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AO HAD RECE IVED AN INFORMATION FROM ITO WARD 9 (1) NEW DELHI INDICATIN G THAT SHRI RAJESH DUGGAL, MD OF M/S. SPEAR HEAD DIGITAL STUDIO PVT. LTD. HAS APPLIED FOR SHARES. HE ARRANGED RS. 35,00,000/- FRO M SHRI ALOK MATHUR, PROPRIETOR OF ABM FINANCIAL SERVICES FOR AP PLYING FOR THE SHARERS. THIS MONEY WAS ADVANCED AS UNSECURED LOAN TO SHRI RAJESH DUGGAL BY THE ASSESSEE IN F.Y. 2000-01 RELEV ANT TO ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02. ON FURTHER INVESTIGATION IT CAME TO T HE NOTICE OF AO THAT SHRI ALOK B MATHUR HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN FO R ASSTT. YEAR 2001- 02. HOWEVER HE FILED THE RETURN IN ASSTT. YEAR 2004 -05 BUT NO UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 35,00,000/- TO SHRI RAJESH DU GGAL WAS SHOWN. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE INFORMATION AO FORMED AN OPIN ION THAT INCOME OF RS. 35,00,000/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. H E TOOK APPROVAL FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS I SSUED ON 10.12.2007 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE AO THEREAFTER ISSUED NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142 (1) AL ONGWITH QUESTIONAIRS. THESE NOTICES WERE COMPLIED WITH BY T HE ASSESSEE. SINCE THERE IS NO ELABORATED DISCUSSION IN THE ASST T. ORDER FOR ITA NO. 3220/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 3 APPRECIATING THE CONTROVERSY IN HAND IT IS NECESSAR Y TO TAKE NOTE OF INTERIM ORDER SHEET RECORDED BY THE AO WHICH REA D AS UNDER :- PROP. M/S. ABM FINANCIAL SERVICES A.Y. 2001-02 THE CASE HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON TRANSFER FROM ITO, WA RD 37(1), NEW DELHI AS PER ORDER OF CIT, DELHI XIII. ISSUE FROM NOTICE U/S 143(2) REQUISITE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HEARI NG ON 4.6.08. SD/- 4.6.08 LETTER DATED 4.6.08 FILED BY THE SEEKING ADJOURNEMTN. CASE IS ADJOURNED TO 12.6.08. SD/- 20/10/08 NOTICE U/S 143(2) ISSUED FOR 1011.08 10/11/08 SHRI ALOK B MATHUR, THE A SSESSEE HIMSELF . HE IS REQUESTED TO FILE THE DETAILS AS ASKED VIDE NOTICE / QUESTIONNAIRE CASE ADJOURNED TO 14.11.08. SD/- 10.11.08 26/11/08 SHRI ALOK B MATHUR, CA THE ASSESSEE ATTEND ED AND FILED LETTER DATED 26.11.08 ALOGNWITH DETAILS. HE I S REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE FOLLOWING :- (I) DOCUMENTORY EVIDENCE OF SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS. 35 LAKH TO SHRI RAJESH DUGGAL. (II) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 3 5 LAKH IS ACCOUNTED FOR THE INCOME OF ASSTT. YEAR 2000-01. (III) COPIES OF ALL BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE RELEVANT P ERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSTT. EYAR 2001-02 ITA NO. 3220/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 4 (IV) DETAIL OF PROFESSIONAL FEE RECEIVED DURING THE AND NAME & ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES (V) COPIES OF ALL LEDGER ACCOUNT EXPENSES OF RS. 20,000/- AND ABOVE. (VI) FILE THE I.T. RETURN FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2001- 02 PROVIDED BY THE ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 CASE ADJOURNED TO 3.12.08 1.11.08 SHRI DINESH KUMAR SINGH, AS AUTHORISED BY S HRI ALOK B MATHUR, THE A ATTENDED AND FILED AUTHORISATION LETTER ALONGWITH A LETTER FORM SHRI ALOK B MATHUR DATED 27 .11.08, STATING THAT TO GAIN THE PEACE OF MIND, HE VOLUNTAR ILY SURRENDERS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 35 LAKHS FOR THE F.Y. 2000-01, RELEVANT TO THE ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 WITH THE REQUES T THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (!) (C) MAY NOT BE INIT IATED AGAINST HIM. HIS APPLICATION IS PALCED ON RECORD AN D CASE IS ADJOURNED TO 3.12.08 SD/- 27.11.08 3.12.08 SHRI DINESH KUMAR SINGH, AR OF THE A ATTE NDED AND FILED LETTER DATED 3.12.08 STATING THAT WRT HIS SUB MISSION OF VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERING OF INCOME OF RS. 35,00,000 /- AS PER ORDERSHEET DATED 27.11.08 AN AMOUNT OF TAX OF RS. 5 ,76,400/- AS PART PAYAMENT OF TAX U/S 140A HAS BEEN DEPOSITED REQUESTED THAT HE MAY BE ALLOWED TIME FOR MAKING BA LANCE PAYMENT OF TAX DUE. HE IS REQUESTED TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL CHALLAN OF BANK DEPOSIT. CASE ADJOURNED TO 8.12.08. SHRI ALOK B MATHUR THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH SHIR DINE SH KUMAR SINGH FILED INCOME TAX RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 WITH FORWARDING LETTER DATED 8.12.08 SHOWING TA XABLE INCOME OF RS. 35,45,983/-. CASE DISCUSSED. SD/- 8.12.08 ITA NO. 3220/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 5 4. AFTER DEALING WITH THE CASE AS ABOVE AO PASSED T HE ASSESSMENT AND DETERMINED THE TAXABLE INCOME OF ASS ESSEE AT RS. 35,45,980/- BECAUSE IT WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSE E IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE ASSTT. ORDER R EAD AS UNDER :- DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A SSESSEE FILED HIS INCOME TAX RETURN OF A.Y. 2001-02 DECLARI NG INCOME OF RS. 35,45,980/-. ON ASKING EXPLANATION OF SOURCE S OF LOAN OF RS. 35,00,000/- GIVEN TO SHRI RAJESH DUGGAL FOR THE F.Y. 2000- 2001, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS UNABLE TO F IND THE OLD RECORDS AND TO GAIN PEACE OF MIND, HE VOLUNTARILY S URRENDERS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 35,00,000/- FOR THE F.Y. 2000-01, RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2001-2002 FOR TAXATION. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONT ENTION HE ALSO FURNISHED A PROOF OF PART PAYMENT MADE U/S 140 A AND REQUESTED FOR TIME TO MAKE THE BALANCE PAYMENT. AFTER DISCUSSION THE RETURNED INCOME, AS DISCLOSED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, OF RS. 35,45,980/ - IS ACCEPTED. ASSESSED AT RS. 35,45,980/- PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (1) HAVE ALREADY BEEN INITIATED. ISSUE NECESSARY FORMS. GIVE CREDIT FOR TAXES PAID. CHARGE INTEREST AS APPLICABL E. 5. DISSATISFIED WITH THE DETERMINATION OF INCOME AT RS. 35,45,980/- ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL B EFORE THE CIT(A). IN HIS FIRST FOLD OF SUBMISSION THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN ON THE COUNTER. THE PROPOS ED RETURN WAS GIVEN TO THE AO DURING THE ASSTT. PROCEEDINGS AND T HIS RETURN COULD NOT BE TREATED AS FILED U/S148/139 (2) OF THE INCOME TAX. ITA NO. 3220/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 6 ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF RETURN FILED U/S 139 (1) THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE A CT WAS NOT VALID. THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED U/S 144 AND NOT U /S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147. HENCE THE ASSTT. ORDER DESER VES TO BE ANNULLED. LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THIS CONTENTION OF AS SESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESS EE ON 10.12.2007 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON HIM AND IT WA S NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER THE AO HAD ISS UED NOTICES U/S 142(1) AND 143(2) OF THE ACT. FILING OF THE RETURN TO THE AO AND NON FILING AT THE COUNTER DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS VALID RETURN AND THEREFORE THE PROCEEDING UNDERTAKEN BY THE AO ON SUCH RETURN ARE VALID PROCE EDING. IN THE SECOND FOLD OF SUBMISSION IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE A SSESSEE THAT AO HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 35,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT FRO M WHERE HE COULD ISSUE CHEQUES OF RS. 35,00,000/- TO SHRI RAJE SH DUGGAL. IN ORDER TO BUTTRESS THIS CONTENTION ASSESSEE SOUGHT T O PLACE ON RECORD COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENT INDICATING THE FACTS THAT RS. 35,00,000/- WERE RECEIVED FROM M/S. PRINTWEL GRAPHI CS, A-7/15, ITA NO. 3220/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 7 SECTOR 15, ROHINI DELHI. THIS CONTENTION HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT NO SUCH PLEA WAS EVER RAISED BEFORE THE AO. ASSESSEE HIMSELF FILED THE RETURN DISCLOSIN G INCOME OF RS. 35,45,980/- AND PAID THE TAX PARTLY U/S 140A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 6. IN THE NEXT FOLD OF GRIEVANCE HE CHALLENGED CHAR GING OF INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. L D. CIT(A) REJECTED BOTH THESE GROUNDS ALSO AND HIS FINDING RE AD AS UNDER : 6. THE ORIGINAL GROUND NO. 1 CHALLENGES THE CHARGI NG OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B. IN THIS REGAR D IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT SPECIFIED THE SECTION UNDER WHICH THE INTEREST WAS TO BE CHARGED. HENCE, THE INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B WAS ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE C ASE. THE INTEREST, THEREFORE, DESERVED TO BE DELETED. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRITTEN IN THE ORDER CHARGE INTEREST AS APPLICABLE. THE CHARGING OF INTEREST IS MANDATO RY IN NATURE (252 ITR 1). IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE AS SESSMENT ORDER AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ARE SIGNED BY THE SAME OFFICER AND, THE APPELLANT WAS AWARE OF THE FACT HA T THE RETURN BEING LATE, HE WAS LIABLE TO PAY THE INTERES T. HENCE, THIS CASE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HO NBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VINOD KHURANA (253 ITR 578). THE APPELLANTS CLAIM IS, TH EREFORE, WITHOUT ANY MERIT AND IS, ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. 8. THE NEXT GROUND CHALLENGES CHARGING OF INTER EST UNDER ITA NO. 3220/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 8 SECTION 234A, AS THE APPELLANT WAS ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 147 FOR THE FIRST TIME. IT IS SUBMITTED THA T IF AN ASSESSMENT IS MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME UNDER SECTION 147, THE ASSESSEE CAN NOT BE MADE LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN TILL ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE. A PERUS AL OF THE SECTION 234A CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE INTEREST HAS TO BE CHARGED TILL THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. SINCE IN THIS CASE NO DETERMINATION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 143(1) OR ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) HAD BEEN MADE, T HE APPELLANT IS LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST FOR THE WHOLE P ERIOD. THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND, THEREFORE, ALSO FAILS. 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE IMPUGNING THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER RAISED HIS FIRST PREPOSITION TO TH E EFFECT THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE AO TO ASSESS INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE CORRECTLY. THE AO SHOULD NOT CAPITALISE THE IGNORANCE OF AN ASSESS EE FOR OFFERING HIS INCOME FOR TAXATION. TO BUTTERACE THIS ARGUMENT HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF S,R. KOSHTI VS. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 GUJARAT AND MALL ABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT(A) 243 ITR 83 (SC). HIS MAIN THRUS T OF ARGUMENT IS THAT ONCE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT FUND FROM WHERE HE COULD ADVANCE THE LOA N TO SHRI RAJESH DUGGAL THEN AO OUGHT TO HAVE ASCERTAIN THESE FACTS FOR DETERMINING THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO ITA NO. 3220/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 9 CONTENDED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RET URN U/S 139 (2) OR IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF 148 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT AO COULD NOT ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143 (2) ETC. AND HIS ASSESSMEN T DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. IN THIS WAY HE PRAYED THAT ASSTT. ORDER BE SET ASIDE. ALTERNATIVELY, HE PRAYED THAT AO BE DIRECTED TO RE- EXAMINE THE FACTS. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A). HE POINTED OUT THAT LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY HAS CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF STERLING MACHINE TOOLS VS. CIT REPORTED IN 123 ITR 181 AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF JIVAT LAL PURTAPSHI VS. CIT 65 ITR 261. IN THESE TW O DECISIONS IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY APPEAL AGAINST A N AGREED ASSESSMENT. ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPRESSED HIS GRIEVANC E BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSTT. PROCEEDING. THEREFORE HE IS BO UND TO DETERMINE THE INCOME ON THE BASIS OF DECLARED INCOM E BY ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE MAIN ARGUMENT RAI SED BY DR. RAM SAMUJH IS THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN UN DER ITA NO. 3220/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 10 MISCONCEPTION OF FACTS. HE WAS NOT ADVISED PROPERLY BY THE TAX CONSULTANT. HE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT MONEY IN HIS A CCOUNT FROM WHERE IT CAN BE SAID THAT ADVANCES WERE MADE TO SHR I DUGGAL. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL BECAUSE THE ASSTT. YEAR INVOLVED HEREIN IS 2001-02. LOANS WERE GIVEN IN THE MONTH OF MAY 2000. ASSESSEE HAS NOT F ILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME . HE MIGHT BE HAVING TAXABLE INCOME. HE S HOULD HAVE DECLARED HIS AFFAIRS IN THE RETURN AND SHOULD HAVE DISCLOSED THE CREDIT BALANCE OF MORE THAN RS. 36 LACS RECEIVED F ROM ALLEGED M/S. PRINTWEL GRAPHICS IN THE MONTH OF APRIL TO MA Y 2000. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FULFIL THIS DUTY. THE ASSTT. WAS NOT FRAMED IN A HURRY. FROM PERUSAL OF THE INTERIM ORDERS SUPRA IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE WAS EXTRACTED FROM THE AS SESSEE OR HE FILED HIS RETURN UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF AO. THERE I S NO MATERIAL BROUGHT ON THE RECORD WHICH CAN SUGGEST THAT SUCH D ISCLOSURE WAS MADE UNDER SOME UNDUE INFLUENCE OR THREAT. THERE IS A SUFFICIENT TIME LAG BETWEEN THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 143(2) AND THE ULTIMATE FILING OF THE RETURN. THE AO CALLED FOR INFORMATION VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 26.11.2008 THE ASSESSEE MADE THE OFFER ON 27.11.2008. ITA NO. 3220/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 11 THEREAFTER THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 3 RD DECEMBER, 2008. THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE CONSULTED SOME OTHER CONSULTANT IF HE HAS A FEELING THAT HE WAS NOT HAVING ANY INCOME. HE FILE D THE RETURN AFTER 3 RD DECEMBER AND PAID TAX AS PART PAYMENT OF TAX U/S 140A. THE ASSTT. WAS PASSED ON 17.12.2008. THUS IT INDIC ATE THAT ALMOST MORE THAN 20 DAYS TIME WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSE E FOR CONSULTATION AND DELIBERATION. WE COULD APPRECIATE THE CONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD EVER YTHING WAS COMPLETED WITHIN ONE DAY AND WHILE SITTING WITH THE AO HE HAS WRITTEN A LETTER SURRENDERING THE INCOME AND THEN F ILED THE RETURN ON THAT VERY DAY. THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT TIME LOG B ETWEEN THE OFFER AND ULTIMATE FILING OF THE RETURN. MORE SO AFTER T HE PAYMENT OF TAX, THE ASSESSEE NEVER RESILED FROM HIS FIRST VERSION PUT BEFORE THE AO UPTO THE PASSING OF THE ASSTT. ORDER. THIS INDICATE THAT AVAILABILITY OF THE FUNDS ETC. PLEADED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY ARE ALL AFTER THOUGHT. THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE AO TO LOOK INTO ALL THESE AFFAIRS BECAUSE THESE MATERIALS WERE NOT BEFO RE THE AO. HE ACCEPTED THE DECLARED INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE THERE CANNOT BE ANY QUESTION TO INVESTIGATE THE IS SUE BECAUSE IT ITA NO. 3220/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 12 IS NOT THE CASE THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED SOME WRON G DEDUCTION OR FAIL TO CLAIM SOME DEDUCTION UNDER MISINTERPRETA TION OF LAW OR MISCONCEPTION OF FACTS. IT IS A SIMPLE ORDINARY CAS E THAT ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED MONEY TO ONE SHRI RAJESH DUGGAL. HE R EQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THE SOURCE. INSTEAD OF DISCLOSING THE SOUR CE HE OFFERED THE MONEY FOR TAXATION. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY ME RIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IT IS REJECTED. 9. IN GROUND NO. 3 & 4 ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE CHARGE OF INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234A EXCEPT REITERATING THE C ONTENTION AS WERE NOTICED BY LD. CIT (A) . NO NEW ARGUMENT WAS R AISED. CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) EXTRACTED SUPR A WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL ALSO. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.6.2010 [G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA] [RAJPAL YADAV] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30.6.2010 ITA NO. 3220/DEL/2009 ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 13 VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT