Kaushik Chatterjee, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3334/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 333420114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SULEKHA VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: O P SAPRA
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 69C; 153A; 131; 69; 27

Judgement Text

ITA NO S . 3334 & 3419/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3 334 / DEL /20 11 A.Y. : 200 7 - 0 8 KAUSHIK CHATTER J EE, C/O NARANG & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS, D - 28(LGF), JANGPURA EXTENSION, NEW DELHI (PAN: ADFPC1422N) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 46(1), MAYUR BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110 001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND / I.T.A. NO.3 419 / DEL /20 11 (A.Y. 200 7 - 0 8 ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 46(1), MAYUR BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110 001 KAUSHIK CHATTER J EE, 306, ALANKAR APPARTMENTS, SECTOR - 56, GURGAON DEPARTMENT BY : MS. SULEKHA VERMA, CIT(DR) ASSESSEE BY : SH. O .P. SAPRA, ADV DATE OF HEARING : 20 .11.2014 DATE OF ORDER : 21 .11 .2014 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : J M TH ESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE EMANATE OUT OF THE ORDER 29.4.2011 PASSED BY THE ITA NO S . 3334 & 3419/DEL/2011 2 LD. CIT(A) - XXX , NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 . 2. THE GROUND RAISED IN THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IN ITA NO. 33 34 ) REA D AS UNDER: - THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS: 1. IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,15,000/ - AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME BASED ON THE DUMB DOCUMENT IN ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE GROUND RAISED IN THE REVENUE S APPEAL (ITA NO. 3 419 ) READ AS UNDER: - ON THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN: (I) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 46,90,000/ - ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE S AVERMENTS AND IGNORING THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PARTICULARLY ON PAGE NO. 10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE THE TAX TREATMENT OF THE ENTRIES IN PART 3 OF PAGE 4 OF ANNEXURE 3 OF DOCUMENTS SEIZED AND THE REASONS FOR ADDITION HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED. (II) NO CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ONUS OF PROVING THE NATURE OF THE ENT RIES IN THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED LIES ON THE ASSESSEE AS THE ENTRIES WERE MADE BY HIM IN HIS OWN HANDWRITING AND SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO S . 3334 & 3419/DEL/2011 3 BOTH DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ARE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIG HT TO ALTER, AMEND, ADD OR SUBSTITUTE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. SINCE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL, THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. (REV ENUE S APPEAL ITA NO. 3419 /DEL/2011 ) 5. THE BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSSESSEE IS A SALARIED INDIVIDUAL WHO FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AT RS. 32,66,198/ - FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08. A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSE IN PURSUANCE OF SEIZURE OF SOME DOCUMENTS SPIRAL NOTE BO OKS, DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THIRD PARTY MR. GURBAX SINGH. IN RESPONSE TO SAID NOTICE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN, RS. 8,25,712/ - BEING UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE WERE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADDITIONAL INCO ME WHICH WERE ACTUALLY SPENT BY MR. GURBAX SINGH ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS NEITHER PAID BY THE ASSESEE NOR WERE CLAIMED BACK BY MR. GURBAX SINGH, SINCE HE WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND CONTACTABLE AFTER SEARCH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 53,05,000/ - VIDE ORDER DATED 23.12.2010. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO VIDE ITA NO S . 3334 & 3419/DEL/2011 4 IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.4.2011 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. LD. D R RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE 5 OF THE SYNOPSIS FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND STATED THAT ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT PAGES A/3/P4 AND PAGE 19 OF A - 4 AND PAGE 1 OF A - 4 HAVE B EEN WRITTEN BY HIM. SHE ALSO DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED U/S. 131 ON 27.10.2010. SHE ALSO READ THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PAGE 6 PARA 5 AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE INCOME OF RS. 8,25,712/ - BEING UNEXPLAI NED EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE TRIP TO DUBAI AND PURCHASED THE AIR - CONDITIONER AND EXPENDITURE INCURRED THEREOF WAS SPENT BY GURBAX SINGH ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHE STATED THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 8,25,712/ - IS PART OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS MEANIN G THEREBY THAT THERE IS A PART OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT HAS BEEN OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. BUT THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DECLARED THAT SEIZED DOCUMENT IS DUM B DOCUMENT AND DELETED THE ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCE VALUE OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. FINALLY, SHE STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. 7. 1 ON THE CONTRARY, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND ESPECIALLY READ THE PARA 3 PG. 4 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED EACH AND EVERY DATA/FIGURE/SCRIBBLING ON THE ITA NO S . 3334 & 3419/DEL/2011 5 SEIZED DOCUMENTS . HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE AO HAS W RONGLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION WITH RESPECT TO UNEXPLAINED ENTRIES MADE ON THE SEIZED PAPERS I.E. UNEXPLAINED INCOME AND UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. HE ALSO DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE 18 PARA 5 AND 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY HIM AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS HONESTLY DECLARED THE INCOME OF RS. 8,25,712/ - BEING UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. SINCE THIS WAS INCURRED BY GURBAX SINGH ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HONESTLY OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE SEEN WITH DOUBT, BUT HIS VERSION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS SUCH BEING TRUTH. SHE ALSO DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE. 20 - 22 OF THE PABER BOK FILED BY HER TO SUPPORT HER ARGUMENTS. AND LASTLY, SHE REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE UPHELD AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE ON RECORD ESPECIALLY THE SYNOPSIS FILED BY THE ASSESSE ALONGWITH THE PAPER BOOK PAGES 1 - 72 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED MANY DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER. THE RELEVANT PARA NO. 5 TO 6 IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 5. I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WRITTEN SUBMISSION, OTHER EVIDENCES FILED BY ARS AND DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH THEM CAREFULLY. THE A.O. HAD PASSED THE ORDER U/S 153C/ R.W. 153A BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.29,60,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME AND EXPENSES OF RS.23,45,OOO/ - AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ITA NO S . 3334 & 3419/DEL/2011 6 FOUND IN T H E PART III OF DUMB DOCUMENT (ANNEXURE - 3 OF PAGE 4 OF SPIRAL NOTE BOOK)WHICH IS ALSO SCANNED AND EXHIBITED AS PART OF ORDER IN PAGE NO. 2 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. 1. ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED INDIVIDUAL, W HO WAS WORKING WITH ICIC I BANK IN THE ASST. YEAR 2007 - 08. 2. SEARCH CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF MR. GURBAX SINGH, NEIGHBOUR OF THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE ON 07.09.2006. SOME DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING' THE SEARCH OPERATIONS AT THE PREMISES OF MR.GURBAX SINGH IN WHICH SCRIBBLING WERE ALLEGED TO BE PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT. 3. ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153 C R/W 153A ON 26.03.2009. THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE WERE SALARIED EMPLOYEE IN THE YEAR 2006. MR.GURBAX SINGH, THE NEIGHBOUR WANTED TO BUY A PLOT FROM HUDA (PLOT NO.563, SECTOR - 21 ,HUDA, FARIDABAD) AT AN IN VESTMENT OF RS.L.5 CRORES. AS HE WAS NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDS, HE WANTED TO BRING APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE AND FEW OTHERS AS INVESTORS/PARTNERS FOR WHICH THIS, SCRIBBLING WAS MADE BY APPELLANT IN THE HOUSE OF HIS NEIGHBOUR (MR.GURBAX SINGH) WHOSE HOUSE WA S SEARCHED. NO STATEMENT U/S 1 32(4) WAS TAKEN FROM APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IN ITA NO S . 3334 & 3419/DEL/2011 7 SEPTEMBER,2006. THE AO OF APPELLANT TOOK. A STATEMENT U/S 131 ON 27 - 10 - 2010 (AFTER 4 YEARS OF SEARCH), AND MR.GURBAX SINGH IS MISSING FROM 2006. IN QUESTION NO.7 OF PAG E - 3 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE APPELLANT ADMITS THAT HE COULD NOT RELATE ALL THE ENTRIES IN PART - ILL OF PAGE - 4 OF ANNEXURE (A - 3). THESE SCRIBBLING WERE MADE ON THE INSTRUCTION OF SH.GURBAX SINGH, IN AN INFORMAL ENVIRONMENT, MOSTLY AS PROJECTIONS TOWARDS PUR CHASE OF PLOT NO.563/HUDA. IN THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES, THE ARS PROVED THAT THE ABOVE PLOT HAD NEVER BEEN SOLD BY HUDA SO FAR TO GURUBAX SINGH OR APPELLANT OR THEIR RELATIVES TILL DATE. HENCE THE PROJECTIONS AT PLANNING STAGE TO BUY A PROPERTY FOR INV ESTMENT PURPOSE, THE FIGURES WRITTEN SHOULD BE VERIFIED AS TO REAL INVESTMENTS MADE IF ANY, AND THEN SECTIONS 69 - A & 69 - C COULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED. 4. ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO SAID NOTICE ON 29.04.2009 DECLARING AN ADDITIONAL INCO ME OF RS. 8,25,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF PERSONAL NATURE AS AN HONEST AND LAW ABIDING TAX PAYER SINCE THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY MR. GURBAX SINGH ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE/APPELLANT TO WHOM MONEY ITA NO S . 3334 & 3419/DEL/2011 8 COULD NOT BE RETURNED BY ASSESSEE DUE TO NON AVAI LABILITY OF MR. GURBAX SINGH. 5. MR. GURBAX SINGH AFTER FEW MONTHS OF SEARCH WENT MISSING AND WAS NOT CONTACTABLE TILL DATE. EX - PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN CASE OF MR. GURBAX SINGH WAS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AT FARIDABAD AND ADDITION OF CRORES OF RUPEES WAS MADE. 6.SEIZED DOCUMENTS DID NOT BEAR ANY DATE, NAME OR SIGNATURES OF ANYBODY AND WERE DUMB DOCUMENTS. 7. ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SCRIBBLINGS MADE ON THE PAPERS AS OF NO FINANCIAL RELEVANCE AND CONSISTENTLY MAINTAINED THE SAME IN HIS FILED L ETTER DATED 05.10.2010, 06.12.2010, AFFIDAVIT DATED 02.12.2010 & PERSONAL DEPOSITION BEFORE THE LD. A.O. ON 27.10.2010 & 18.11.2010. THE ARS MAINTAINED THE SAME STORY BEFORE AO AND ME. ALL THE SUB STANTIAL EVIDENCES CONSIDERED WHILE FRAMING THE REGULAR ASSE S EE O RDER. 8. THE LD. A.O. WAS NOT POSSESSED WITH ANY EVIDENCE AGAINST THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE AS SHE WAS TO REBUT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. LD. A.O. DID NOT PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PERSO NAL FROM WHOSE POSSESSION THE DOCUMENT S WERE SE I ZED. THE LD. ITA NO S . 3334 & 3419/DEL/2011 9 A.O. HAS WRONGLY DRAWN THE PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 132(4A) ABOUT THE DUMB DOCUMENT SEIZED FROM THE POSSESSION OF THIRD PARTY AND NOT ADMITTING THE REBUTTAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SOME PART OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF REMAINING PART OF THE SEIZED PAPERS. SHE COULD NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION FOR THE MAJOR PART OF DOCUMENT AND REJECT THE OTHER PAR T OF THE DOCUMENT TO HER SUITABILITY AND TO HER WHIMS & FANCIES. SHE RELIEF ON SECTION 132(4A) AND 292C WHICH STRESS THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOUND FROM THE PERSON WHOSE HOUSE HAVE BEEN SEARCHED, ARE UNDER 'THE CONTROL AND POSSESSION OF THAT PERSON(IN THIS CASE MR.GURBAX SINGH) THUS, THE SPIRAL NOTE BOOK BELONGS TO MR.GURBAX SINGH AND MR.GURBAX SINGH SHOULD HAVE EXPLAINED EACH AND EVERY ENTRY IN IT. GENERALLY, SOME PLANNING AND PROJECTIONS ARE MADE IN PIECES OF PAPERS, BUT WHETHER SUCH PROJECT HAD COME INTO EXISTENCE OR NOT, PLANNING IS EXECUTED OR NOT, THE WHOLE EVIDENCES SHOULD BE GATHERED AND DECISION BE TAKEN ON THE WHOLE ISSUES TAKEN TOGETHER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO PROPERTY PLOT NO.563 (HUDA), SECTOR - 21 . FARIDABAD HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY MR.GURBAX SINGH OR APPELLANT KAUSHIK CHATTERJEE (KC), HENCE THE SCRIBBLING IN THE SPIRAL NOTE BOOK ITA NO S . 3334 & 3419/DEL/2011 10 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS FINAL FIGURES FOR RECOGNITION OF INCOME/EXPENDITURE. 10. EVEN IF THE PRESUMPTION DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THEN THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTI ON 69A & 69C HAVE TO FULFILL THE INGREDIENTS OF THESE SECTIONS, IN THE INSTANT CASE NO EXPENSES ARE INCURRED ACTUALLY. THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A & 69C COULD NOT BE INVOKED. THE AO SHOULD HAVE TRACED THE ABSCONDING ACCUSED PARTY MR. GURUBAX SINGH BY POLICE COMPLAINT OR ANY OTHER MODE, AND SHOULD HAVE GIVEN CHANCE TO CROSS EXAMINE MR. GURUBAX SINGH BY APPELLANT. WHEN THE APPELLANT GIVES AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING HIS CONDUCT AND HOW THE SCRIBBLED DOCUMENT WAS GENERATED, THE AO. SHOULD HAVE DONE SOME M ORE INVESTIGATION TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH. WHEN THE HUDA PROPERTY WAS NOT PURCHASED FROM STATE GOVT OF HARYANA, THEN THE TRUTH IN THE DUMB DOCUMENT IS NOT PROVED. THE AO SHOULD NOT ADD CREDIT & DEBIT SIDE OF P&L ALC TO THE INCOME RETURNED BY ASSESSEE, IN HIS BLOCK RETURN U/S 153C OF THE ACT, BUT SHE SHOULD HAVE ADDED ONLY THE DIFFERENCE OF THE ALLEGED P&L ALC DEBIT & CREDIT SIDE ONLY. 11. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, PRESUMING THAT THE ALLEGED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT IS RECORDING OF FINANCIAL TRANS ACTIONS EVEN THEN TO ARRIVE AT THE NET INCOME EXPENSES ITA NO S . 3334 & 3419/DEL/2011 11 ARE TO BE REDUCED FROM THE INCOME AS IS, DEAR FROM THE ALLEGATION OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THIS WAS AN INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. THE INCOME TO BE TAXED AS RECORDED ON THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SEIZE D PAPER WOULD BE AS UNDER: TOTAL OF INCOME SIDE 29,60,000 / - MIN US EXPENDITURE(31,70,000 - 8,25,000) 23,45,000 / - 6,15,000 / - . 12. IN THE WORST CASE, THE LD. A.O. SHOULD HAVE ADDED A SUM OF RS. 6,15,000/ - AND NOT THE RS. 53,05,000 / - TO WHICH ASSESSEE DOES NOT AGREE AND NO ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF EXPLAINED DUMB DOCUMENT SEIZED FROM THE POSSESSION OF THIRD PARTY WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PERSON FROM WHOSE POSSESS ION THE DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED. THE ASSESSEE WAS WORKING AS A SENIOR EXECUTIVE IN ICICI BANK IN A.Y. 2007 - 08. WHEN HE IS DISCLOSING ALL HIS INCOME IN HIS RETURN INCLUDING RS.8,25,712/ - AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S 153C OF THE IT ACT, THE AO SHOULD HAVE MADE DEEPER INVESTIGATION ON DUMB DOCUMENT. HO WEVER, AS THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF RS. 6,15,000 / - IN PART - III OF DUMB DOCUMENT, BEING INCOME SIDE IN EXCESS OF EXPENDITURE SIDE, AND APPELLANT ITA NO S . 3334 & 3419/DEL/2011 12 ACCEPTED RS. 8,25,712/ - AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE MADE BY MR. GURUBAX SI NGH ON HIS BEHALF FROM THIS PART OF DOCUMENT, THE BALANCE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 6,15,000/ - IS ALSO ADDED TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF APPELLANT U/S 153C OF THE IT ACT. THUS APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF (RS. 53,05,000 - 6,15,000) = RS. 46,90,000 / - IN THIS ORDER. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO MODIFY THE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORIT IES ALONGWITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER, AS PER LAW AND ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FULLY AGREED WITH THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. (ASSESSEE S APPEAL ITA NO. 3334/DEL/2011) 10. SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE REVENUE S APPEAL AND UPHELD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) , IS ALSO DISMISSED. ITA NO S . 3334 & 3419/DEL/2011 13 11 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE STAND DISMISSED IN THE AFORESAID MANNER. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 21 - 11 - 2014. SD/ - SD/ - [ T.S. KAPOOR ] [ H.S. SIDHU ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 21 / 11 /201 4 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