ITO, Sonepat V. Sh. Surender Singh Dahiya, Sonepat

ITA 338/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91409 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R R KUMAR SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: S S PARASHAR S; S R PARASHAR
• Keywords: Gift; Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 517/DEL/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) SHRI SURENDER SINGH DAHIYA, VS. ITO, WARD NO. 3, S/O SHRI MANGE RAM DAHIYA, SONEPAT (HARYANA). VILLAGE PIPLI, TEHSIL KHAKHODA, DISTT. SONEPAT (HARYANA) (PAN : AKKPD2310A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.338/DEL/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) ITO, WARD NO. 3, VS. SHRI SURENDER SINGH DAHIYA, SONEPAT (HARYANA). S/O SHRI MANGE RAM DAHIYA, VILLAGE PIPLI, TEHSIL KHAKHODA, DISTT. SONEPAT (HARYANA) (PAN : AKKPD2310A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI S.R. PARASHAR & S.S. PARASHAR, ADVOCATES REVENUE BY : SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 19.05.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.07.2015 O R D E R PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2008 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), ROHTAK PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2 ITA NO.517/DEL./2009 ITA NO.338/DEL./2009 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL :- (I). THAT AT THE VERY OUTSET THE IMPUGNED ORDER D ATED 20.11.2008 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER ROHTAK CONFIRMING TH E ADDITION OF OPENING BALANCE RS.5,60,117/- SHOWN BY THE APPEL LANT IN HIS BALANCE SHEET, ADDITION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF R S. L,90,500/-AND ADDITION OF RS.40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE-HOLD DR AWINGS IS VOID AND ILLEGAL IN AS MUCH AS THE SAID ADDITIONS HAVE B EEN CONFIRMED WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD . (II). THAT THE LD. APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ERRED I N LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 5,60,117/- IN THE I NCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF OPENING BALANCE, WITHOUT RE CORDING THE TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE FINDING SUPPORTED BY LAW, FACTS, REASON AND EVIDENC ES AND BEING DELETED. (III). THAT THE LD. A.O. COMMITTED A SERIOUS MISTA KE IN DIS- ALLOWING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,90,500/- DECLARED BY APPELLANT AND MAKING THE ADDITION OF THE SAME IN TH E INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS AN INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES, I GNORING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD TILED BY THE AP PELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM/CONTENTION OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SUCH AS PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, I.E. COPY OF JAMA B ANDI AND KHASRA GIRDAWARI, AFFIDAVITS AND STATEMENT OF WITNE SSES. COPIES OF THE SAME ARE ALSO ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR THE KIND PE RUSAL OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. (IV). THAT THE LEARNED APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALSO ER RED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING OF RS. L,90,500/- WHICH IS THE AGRICULTU RAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT EARNED BY HIM FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND IN HIS NATIVE VILLAGE PIPLI, TEHSIL KHAKHODA, DISTT. SONEPAT RECO RDING THE FINDING AND ADMITTING THAT THERE IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO ADMITTING AND HOLDING THAT T HE APPELLANT IS FROM A RURAL BACKGROUND AND IT IS USUAL FOR THE PER SON FROM RURAL BACKGROUND HAVING AGRICULTURAL LAND OF THEIR NATIVE PLACES TO LOOK AFTER THEIR AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY ALTHOUGH THEY ARE WORKING WITH THE GOVT./PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS FOR AWAY FROM THEIR NAT IVE PLACES, WHEN SATURDAY AND SUNDAY ARE HOLIDAYS. IT IS SUBMIT TED THAT APPELLANT HAD AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,90,500/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WHICH HAS BEEN TREATED AS I NCOME OF THE 3 ITA NO.517/DEL./2009 ITA NO.338/DEL./2009 APPELLANT FROM UN-DISCLOSED SOURCES BY THE LD. A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER ILLEGALLY AND TH E SAME IS LIABLE TO BE LIABLE TO BE DELETED. (V). THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEP TED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS, 1,90,500/- EARNED AND S HOWN FROM 6 ACRES AGRICULTURAL LAND BY THE APPELLANT IN THE LI GHT OF HIS OWN OBSERVATION AND SAID FINDING. (VI). THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS COMMITTED A SER IOUS ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS UNDULY ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME MORE THAN RS.15, 140/- PER ACRE WHICH IS MOT IVATED AND THE MOTIVE BEHIND FOR ESTIMATING MORE INCOME PER AC RE IS TO INCREASE HIS CAPITAL TO JUSTIFY THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN DIFFERENT YEARS WHILE ON TH E OTHER HAND, THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS ADMITTED AND ACCEPTED THE INCO ME FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER ON THE AVE RAGE YIELD TO BE BETWEEN RS.7500/- TO RS.10,000/- ON NORMAL LAND PER ACRE IN THE CASES OF I.T.O. VERSUS S/SH. HANUMAN SINGH, GAURI S HANKAR, BHOOP SINGH, RAM KUMAR AND OTHERS OF VILLAGE MANGAL I, HISSAR IN APPEAL NOS.42,43,44,55,56,57/HSR/2008-09 AND 69 AND 70/HSRL2007-08. BUT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF TH E APPELLANT, THE ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1,90,500/- SHO WN AND DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT FROM 6 1/2 ACRE OF LAND YIELDING A PROFIT OF RS. 14,846/- HAS OUT RIGHTLY BEEN REJECTED EVEN WITHOUT ACCEPTING ANY INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND. IT IS PERTINENT TO M ENTION HERE THAT THE AVERAGE YIELD TO BE TAKEN BETWEEN RS. 7,500/- T O RS.10,000/- BY THE COMMISSIONER ON NORMAL LAND IS SITUATED IN D ISTT. HISSAR . IS UN-IRRIGATED AND IS OF C AND D CATEGORY OF LAND WHICH IS NOT CAPABLE OF PRODUCING TWO CROPS IN A YEAR WHILE THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED AND CULTIVATED BY THE APPELLANT IS SITUA TED IN VILLAGE PIPLI, DISTT. SONEPAT WHICH IS FULLY IRRIGATED AND IS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING FULL TWO CROPS IN A YEAR BEING LAND OF A CATEGORY AND FULL OF FERTILITY. THESE FACTS WERE NARRATED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE LETTERS DATED 18.10.2007 WHICH IS ALREADY ON THE RE CORD WITH COPIES OF KHASRA GIRDAWARI DULY ISSUED BY HALQA PATWARI AN D WHICH WAS TOTALLY IGNORED BY THE A.O. AS WELL AS BY THE CIT A ND COPIES OF THE SAME ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL AN D CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.L,90,500/- AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FROM UN-DISCLOSED SOURCE S IS TOTALLY. BAD III LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 4 ITA NO.517/DEL./2009 ITA NO.338/DEL./2009 (VII). THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OUGHT TO HAVE ACC EPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,90,500/- EARNED AND SH OWN FROM 6 ACRES AGRICULTURAL LAND BY THE APPELLANT IN THE L IGHT OF HIS OWN OBSERVATION AND SAID FINDING. (VIII). THAT THE LD.A.O. HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 40,000/- IN THE INCOME OF THE APPEL LANT ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE- HOLD DRAWINGS AS AGAINST THE HOUSE-HO LD DRAWINGS OF RS. 82,470/- MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE PERIO D UNDER REFERENCE AND THE LD.CIT{APPEALS] ILLEGALLY CON-FIR MED THE SAID ADDITION WITHOUT RECORDING ANY FINDING SUPPORTED BY LAW, FACTS, REASONS AND EVIDENCES. SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD I.E. THE LETTERS DATED 3.9.07, 18.10.07 AND 29.11.07.THEREFO RE, THIS ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY TH E APPELLANT IN THIS BEHALF. PHOTO COPIES OF LETTERS ENCLOSED. THEREFORE , THE ADDITION OFRS.40, 000/- IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUST AND IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. (IX). THAT THE SAID ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. I.T. O AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT [APPEALS] ARE TOTALLY BASED ON SELF CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AND ARE WITHOUT APPLICATIO N OF MIND AND ARE UNWARRANTED AND UN- CALLED FOR AND ARE LIABLE T O BE DELETED. (X). THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD.A.O. ARE TO TALLY ERRONEOUS AND ILLEGAL DUE TO THE FACT THAT HE HAS A LREADY ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND IT IS NOT KNOWN FROM TH E ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT THAT WHY THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN A ND DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE PERIOD UNDER REFERENCE HAS BEEN REJECTED AND HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM UN- DISCLOSED SOURCES WHEN THE SAME HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND THIS SUBMISSION WAS ALS O MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT[APPEALS] VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSION S DATED 9.5.2008 WHICH WAS IGNORED AND NOT CONSIDERED BY HI M WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON AND WITHOUT RECORDING ANY FIND ING. THEREFORE, THE SAID ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. A.O A RE BAD IN LAW AND ARE WHOLLY UN-FOUNDED AND MISCONCEIVED AND ARE LIABLE TO BE DELETED. COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ENCLOSED. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT SINCE THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 5 ,60,117/- ON ACCOUNT OF OPENING BALANCE SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHE ET BY THE APPELLANT, ADDITIONS OF RS. 1,90,500/- ON ACCOUNT O F AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND' ADDITIONS OF RS.40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW DRAWINGS 5 ITA NO.517/DEL./2009 ITA NO.338/DEL./2009 MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY HIS ORDER DATED 22.12.2007 AS INCOME FROM UN-DISCLOSED SOURCES AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT [APPEALS] ROHTAK BY HIS ORDER DATED 20.11.2008 ARE ARBITRARY, UNJUST AND ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO L AW AND FACTS AND THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED BY WAY OF ACCEPTING THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. 3. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER :- (I). ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.L,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN FROM ASS ESSEE'S WIFE FOR WHICH HE COULD NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF SOU RCE OF INVESTMENT BY HIS WIFE BEFORE THE A.O. (II). ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.5,05,000/- (ON ACCOUNT OF GENUINENESS OF BANK WI THDRAWAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF AGRICULT URE LAND FOR WHICH HE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE A.O. (III). ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.200000/- ON ACCOUNT OF GENUINENESS OF FRIENDLY L OAN FROM ATTAR SINGH FOR INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAN D FOR WHICH HE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDIN G CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR BEFORE THE A.O. (IV). ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CJT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.250000/- ON ACCOUNT OF GENUINENESS OF FRIENDLY L OAN FROM SH. GANGA RAM FOR INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND FOR WHICH HE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING GIVING AND ACCEPTING LOAN BEFORE THE A.O. (V). THAT THE APPLICANT CRAVES FOR THE PERMISSION TO ADD, DELETE OR RENAMED THE GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TI ME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 4. FIRST OF ALL, WE WILL DEAL WITH ASSESSEES APPEA L. 6 ITA NO.517/DEL./2009 ITA NO.338/DEL./2009 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE DATED 30.04 .2010, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01, 2002-03, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 AND BROUGHT T O OUR NOTICE THAT THE TRIBUNAL INFACT HAD ALSO DEALT WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. AY 2003-04 IN THE SAID ORDER WHILE IT WAS HEARING T HE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE PRECEDING AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND BROUGHT TO OUR N OTICE PARAGRAPH NOS.8 & 9 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS DEALT THE ISSUES RAISED FO R AY 2003-04, WHICH IS UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE US AS FOLLOWS : 8. IN THE AY 2003-04, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME OF RS.L,90,500/- WHICH WAS, TREATED BY THE A O AND CIT(A) AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE AO HAS ALS O MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,27,981/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHO LD WITHDRAWALS. THE AO HAS ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.18 ,05,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY. THUS, TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.26,83,598/- WAS MADE. IN AN APPEAL FILED BY THE- ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE GIFT OF RS.7 LAKHS HAVING BEEN MADE BY THE MOTHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESS EE AND AFTER GIVING DUE CREDIT OF THE SAME, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.5,60,170/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEFICIENCY IN THE FUND REQUIRED FOR M AKING INVESTMENT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.L,27,981/- ON AC COUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND ALSO CONFIRMED AO'S ACTION F OR TREATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IN VI EW OF OUR OBSERVATION MADE HEREINABOVE REGARDING AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAVING BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE DIRECT THE A O TO RECAST THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND TO WORK OUT THE ADDITIO N TO BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS. ON ACCOU NT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ACCEPT RS.7 2,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND ANY SHORTFALL OUT OF THE 7 ITA NO.517/DEL./2009 ITA NO.338/DEL./2009 WITHDRAWALS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID ORDER PERTAINING T O THE A.Y. 2003-04 AS AFORESAID, AND FINDING THAT I.T.A. NUMBER AND YEAR OF ASSESSMENT I.E. 2003-04 MISSING FROM THE TITLE AND BODY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2010 (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE PROMPTLY MOVED A MISC. APPLICATION TO INCL UDE THE ITA NO.517/DEL/2009 PERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION I.E. A.Y. 2003-04 ALSO TO BE INCLUDED IN THE BODY OF THE AFORESAID TR IBUNAL ORDER. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE NON-INCLUSION OF THE I.T.A. NUMBER AN D A.Y. 2003-04 WAS BECAUSE OF TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR AND SO IT CONSTITUTED AN ERR OR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. HOWEVER, THE SAID PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE TRIBUNAL; SO THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE SAME VIDE O RDER DATED 14.12.2012 HOLDING THAT SINCE GROUND NOS.1 & 2 RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.5,60,117/- HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED AND DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID ORDER THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TURNED DOWN. WHILE PASSING THE SAI D ORDER IN THE SAID M.A, THE TRIBUNAL CITED THE DICTUM OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CST VS. VIJAI INT. UDYOG REPORTED IN 152 ITR 111 (SC), WHER EIN IT WAS OBSERVED THAT WHEN THERE ARE CROSS-APPEALS PENDING FOR THE SAME A SSESSMENT YEAR, THEN THE SAME SHOULD BE DECIDED TOGETHER AND DISMISSED THE M .A. OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID BACK GROUND HISTOR Y OF THE CASE WE NEED TO LOOK INTO THE CROSS-APPEALS THAT HAVE BEEN PREFERRE D BEFORE US. 8 ITA NO.517/DEL./2009 ITA NO.338/DEL./2009 8 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS WORKING AS AN LDC IN THE MCD FOR THREE DECADES AND WAS SHOWING INCOME FROM S ALARY FROM MCD, AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND INCOME FROM ANIMAL HUSBANDR Y. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHA SED TWO AGRICULTURAL LANDS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.4,52,000/- ON 28.02.2002 AND ANOTHER LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.13,21,000/- ON 25.10.2002. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF HIS INCOME FOR PURCHASE OF THE SA ID LAND. SO THE ASSESSEE HAD TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS.17.73 LAKHS FOR PURCHAS E OF THE SAID TWO LANDS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED TO THE AO THAT A SUM OF RS.8.50 LAKHS WAS INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE, SMT. SANTOSH DEVI I.E. RS.1.50 LAK HS FROM HER PAST SAVINGS OF SEVERAL YEARS FROM INCOME OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND R S.7 LAKHS OF GIFT AMOUNT WHICH SHE HAS RECEIVED FROM HER MOTHER, SMT. BHARPA I DEVI. ANOTHER SOURCE WHO GAVE MONEY TO HIM WAS SHRI ATTAR SINGH WHO GAVE HIM RS.2 LAKHS IN CASH ON 16.08.2002; AND ANOTHER FRIEND, SHRI GANGA RAM A LSO GAVE HIM A LOAN OF RS.2.5 LAKHS; AND ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED RS.5.05 LAK HS FROM HAS PAST SAVINGS OF SEVERAL YEARS WITHDRAWN FROM THE SAVING BANK ACCOUN T AND ALSO CASH LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE IN HIS HOUSE FROM HIS AGRICULTURAL LAN D. 9. THIS EXPLANATION WAS DISBELIEVED BY THE AO AND H E MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.18,05,000/- AS ASSESSEES INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSE D SOURCE. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS PLEASED TO HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND WAS IN ASSESSEES HAND AND DELETED THE SAID ADDITION, BUT CONFIRMED CERTAIN ADDITION 9 ITA NO.517/DEL./2009 ITA NO.338/DEL./2009 MADE BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE AD DITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DELETION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONS BY THE LD. CIT(A). AS SAID BEFORE, WE WILL FIRST DEAL WITH THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 10. BEFORE WE LOOK IN TO THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE IN HIS APPEAL BEFORE US, LET US FIRST SEE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBU NAL IN APPEALS PREFERRED BY ASSESSEE FOR PRECEDING YEARS I.E. 2000-01 & 2001-02 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS I.E. 2004-05 & 2005-06 WHICH WAS BY A COMMON ORDER DATED 30.04.2014 (SUPRA). A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30.04.20 10 (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DEALT WITH THREE ISSUES REGARDING (A) WHETHER THE ASSESSEE, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE MCD HAD AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH H E CLAIMED; (B) WHAT SHOULD BE THE REASONABLE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND (C) WHETHER THE OPENING BALANCES REFLECTED FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR CAN BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE AS HELD BY BOTH CIT(A) AND AO? 11. THE ISSUE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS BEEN DEALT BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID ORDER. VIDE PARA 4 OF THE SAID ORDER, TH E TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER :- 4. SINCE SIMILAR GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE A SSESSEE IN ALL THE YEARS, WE ARE GOING TO DISPOSE THE APPEALS FOR ALL THE YEARS BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. FROM THE RECORD, WE FOUND THAT ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE SAME WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILIZED SUCH AGRICULTURA L INCOME FOR EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE LAND. BY TREATING THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S, THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE SEPARATE ADDITION MADE ON AC COUNT OF ACQUISITION OF LAND BY ACCEPTING ASSESSEE'S CONTENT ION THAT THIS FUND WAS AVAILABLE TO HIM FOR MAKING FURTHER INVEST MENT. REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN RESPECT OF AD DITION DELETED 10 ITA NO.517/DEL./2009 ITA NO.338/DEL./2009 BY CIT(A). IT WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED DURING THE COU RSE OF HEARING FROM THE LEARNED AR AND LEARNED DR AND BOTH DECLINE D FOR ANY SUCH APPEAL HAVING BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE. FROM THE RECORD, WE FOUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS RESIDING IN HIS PARENTAL HOUSE AT VILLAGE PIPLI, TEHSIL KHARKHODA, DISTT. SONEPAT AND EVERY WEEKEND, HE WAS GOING UP AND DOWN FROM THE PLACE OF HIS OFFICE TO NATIVE PLACE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED DO CUMENTS FOR OWNING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE FORM OF JAMAMAN DI, KHARA, GIRDAWARI ETC. AND ITS USE FOR CULTIVATION, WHICH W AS STATED TO BE ACQUIRED AS PARENTAL LAND. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO ACCE PTED THE FACT OF ASSESSEE HAVING ANCESTRAL LAND. IN VIEW OF THE D OCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD, THE FACT OF ASSESSEE BEING CULTIV ATING AGRICULTURAL LAND OF HIS OWN AND THE LAND TAKEN ON RENT FROM HIS COUSIN BROTHERS SHRI TARA CHAND AND SHRI SHAMSHER S INGH CANNOT BE DECLINED. MERELY BECAUSE THE AO FOUND DIFFERENCE IN THE RENT FOUND TO BE ALLEGED PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF RENT TO THESE PERSONS, THE INCOME DECLARED ON ACCOUNT OF AG RICULTURE CANNOT BE DECLINED OUT RIGHTLY. THE STATEMENTS OF T HE PERSONS WHO HAVE GIVEN LAND TO THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO RECORDED BY THE AO WHEREIN THEY HAVE ACCEPTED THE FACT OF THEIR SHARE OF LAND HAVING BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CULTIVATION. KEEPIN G IN VIEW THE FERTILITY AND LOCATION OF THE LAND WHERE IT IS SITU ATED, WE CAN REASONABLY ESTIMATE THE SAME AT RS.10,000/- PER BIG AS. IN RESPECT OF LAND TAKEN ON RENT RS.5,000/- PER BIGAS. AO AFTE R VERIFYING THE EXACT HOLDING OF LAND BY ASSESSEE AND THE LAND TAKE N ON LEASE/RENT BASIS, REWORK OUT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ASSESS EE. ACCORDINGLY, AO IS DIRECTED TO TREAT AGRICULTURAL I NCOME AS HAVING BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, TO THE EXTENT C OMPUTED IN TERMS OF ABOVE DIRECTION. 12. WE FIND THAT IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO, THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF HAVING EARNED ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME CONTRARY TO HIS CLAIM OF EARNING OF RS.1,90,500/-; AND FOLLOWING SUIT, CI T (A) ALSO HAD THE SAME VIEW OF AO; AND ACCORDINGLY THE LD CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACT ION OF AO AND TREATED RS.1,90,500/- CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE AS AGRICULTURAL I NCOME AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY T HE SAID IMPUGNED ORDER OF 11 ITA NO.517/DEL./2009 ITA NO.338/DEL./2009 THE CIT (A). NOW, AS IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE TRIBU NAL IN THE PRECEDING YEARS TO THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THOSE YEARS AND ASSESSEES A GRICULTURAL INCOME HAS TO BE CALCULATED FOR HIS OWN LAND AT RS.10,000/- PER BIGH A AND RS.5,000/- PER BIGHA ON LAND TAKEN ON LEASE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD DR, COU LD NOT BRING TO OUR NOTICE ANY CHANGE IN FACTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION, SO IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID FINDING AND DIRECTION, FOLLOWING SUIT, WE DIRE CT THE AO THAT AFTER VERIFYING THE EXACT HOLDING OF LAND BY ASSESSEE AND THE LAND TAKEN ON LEASE/RENT BASIS, REWORK OUT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. ACC ORDINGLY, AO IS DIRECTED TO TREAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS HAVING BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, TO THE EXTENT COMPUTED IN TERMS OF ABOVE DIRECTION. 13. THE NEXT ISSUE IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.1, 27,981/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS WHICH ISSUE HAS AGAIN BEEN AD JUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS PER ORDER DATED 30.04.2010 (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE T RIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED VIDE PARA 9(SUPRA) THE AO TO ACCEPT RS.72,000/- AS REASO NABLE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND DO THE RECOMP UTATION OF INCOME. WE CONCUR WITH THE SAID DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND DIRECT THE AO TO ACCEPT RS.72,000/- AS HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION AND DO THE RECOMPUTATION ACCORDINGLY. 14. COMING TO THE GROUND NO.1 & 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL I.E. WITH REPORT TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.5,60,117/-, WE FI ND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE 12 ITA NO.517/DEL./2009 ITA NO.338/DEL./2009 SAID ORDER DATED 30.04.2010 (SUPRA) HAS NOT DISTURB ED THE ADDITION OF RS.5,60,170/- CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A), THOUGH OB SERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT IT IS ON ACCOUNT OF DEFICIENCY IN THE FUND REQ UIRED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH FACT IS NOT FOUND TO BE EMERGING FROM THE RECORDS. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS REVEALS THAT THE SAID ADDITION WAS IN FACT THE AMOUNT REFLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ITS OP ENING BALANCE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION (RS 564260 OPENING BALANCE SHOW N BY ASSESSEE RS 82470 SALARY OF ASSESSEE = RS 560117), WHICH THE AO AS WE LL AS THE LD CIT(A) HAS TREATED AS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL INTRODUCED FR OM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. SINCE IT IS THE OPENING BALANCE OF THE YEAR AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO AND CIT(A), WHICH BOTH DID NOT ACCEPT AND ADDITION CONFIRMED, WE FIND THIS ISSUE OF AMOUNT REFLECTED AS OPENING BALANCE NEEDS TO BE RECOMPUTED SINCE THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 4 (SUPRA) HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE AS SESSEE IS EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THEREFORE, THE ACCUMULATED CASH BALANCE WHI CH IT REFLECTS IN THE OPENING BALANCE NEEDS TO BE RECOMPUTED. SO THIS ISSUE REGAR DING DISALLOWANCE OF OPENING BALANCE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION NE EDS TO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RECASTING OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT WHERE C REDIT FOR AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS TO BE GIVEN IN TERMS OF THE TRIBUNALS DIRECTIO N IN PARA 4 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 30.04.2010 (SUPRA) FOR PRECEDING AND SU BSEQUENT YEAR. 15. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISION AND DIRECTI ONS GIVEN BY US, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 13 ITA NO.517/DEL./2009 ITA NO.338/DEL./2009 16. NOW WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL (ITA NO.338 /DEL/2009). 17. ON A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. C IT (A), WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY ACCEPTI NG THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IN RESPECT TO INVESTMENT OF RS.18,05,000/- ON PROPE RTY PURCHASED AS STATED ABOVE. FACTS ARE REPEATED AGAIN FOR CLARITY. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED TWO AGRICUL TURAL LANDS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.4,52,000/- ON 28.02.2002 AND AN OTHER LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.13,21,000/- ON 25.10.2002. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF HIS INCOME FOR PURCHASE OF THE SA ID LAND. SO THE LAND COSTS AMOUNTING TO RS.17.73 LAKHS + STAMP DUTY, I.E, TOTA L RS 18,05,000/= NEEDED TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAIN ED THAT A SUM OF RS.8.50 LAKHS WAS INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE, SMT. SAN TOSH DEVI I.E. RS.1.50 LAKHS FROM HER PAST SAVINGS OF SEVERAL YEARS FROM INCOME OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND RS.7 LAKHS OF GIFT AMOUNT WHICH SHE HAS RECEIVED FR OM HER MOTHER, SMT. BHARPAI DEVI. ANOTHER AMOUNT OF RS.2 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SHRI ATTAR SINGH IN CASH ON 16.08.2002, ANOTHER FRIEND, SHRI GANGA RAM GAVE HIM A LOAN OF RS.2.5 LAKHS ; AND ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED RS .5.05 LAKHS FROM HIS PAST SAVINGS OF SEVERAL YEARS WITHDRAWN FROM THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND ALSO CASH LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE IN HIS HOUSE FROM HIS AGRIC ULTURAL LAND. 18. THE SAID EXPLANATION OF THE SOURCE OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO. SO HE RECORDED A FINDI NG THAT THE SAID AMOUNT AS 14 ITA NO.517/DEL./2009 ITA NO.338/DEL./2009 EMANATING FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE AND TREATED IT AS ASSESSEES UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IN THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, TH E LD. CIT (A) HOWEVER HAS ACCEPTED THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT RS.7 LAKH S HAS BEEN GIVEN AS A GIFT BY THE MOTHER-IN-LAW TO ASSESSEES WIFE BASED ON THE E VIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. AND REVENUE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THIS DECIS ION OF THE LD CIT(A). NOW, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ACTIO N OF THE LD CIT(A) ACCEPTING THE SOURCE OF RS.5,05,000/- FROM HIS OWN PAST SAVING IN BANK ACCOUNT AND CASH WITH HIM (ASSESSEE) AS GROUND NO.1. 19. APROPOS TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.5,05,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF GENUINENESS OF BANK WITHDRAWAL AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND OTHER DELETIONS. IT SHOULD BE TAKEN NOTE THAT SINCE THERE IS NO QUARREL ABOUT THE SOURCE OF RS 7 LAKHS OUT OF RS 18, 05,000/=, THE REMAININ G AMOUNT WHICH NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED IS RS.11,05,000/-(I.E. RS.18,05,000/- - R S.7,00,000/-) BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH A SCENARIO, LET US SEE HOW THE LD. CIT (A) DEALT THE ISSUE AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. WE FIND THAT THE LD CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER FOR PRECEDING AND IN THE RELEVANT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS CONFIRMED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.3,91,725/- (RS.2,66,4 52/- + RS.1,25,273/-) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03; AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, (I.E. AY 2003-04) HE HAS CONFIRMED ADDITION OF RS. 7,50,500/- (RS.5,60,000/- + RS.1,90,500/-), WHICH WE HAVE DEALT ABOVE. THUS, T HE LD CIT (A) CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING THIS AMOUNT AS INCOME FROM 15 ITA NO.517/DEL./2009 ITA NO.338/DEL./2009 UNDISCLOSED SOURCES TO THE TUNE OF RS.11,42,225/- ( RS.3,91,725/- + RS.7,50,500), WHICH WHEN ADDED WITH THE GIFT OF RS.7 LAKHS ( AMOU NT WHICH IS NOT CHALLENGED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL), WILL COME TO RS.18,42,2 25/- (RS 11,42,225 + RS 7,00,000). THUS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT FUND IN HIS HANDS TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY VALUED AT RS. 17,73,000/-.+STAMP DUTY COMES TO RS 18,05,000/- 20. HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE W HEN CONFRONTED BY THE AO TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PURCHASE OF THE TWO LANDS, HAD BEEN CHANGING HIS VERSION OF SOURCE DIFFERENT FROM WHICH HE SAID BEFO RE THE DDI ON 22.01.2007, THAT HE HAS TAKEN LOAN FROM SHRI ATTAR SINGH OF RS 10 LAKHS I.E. 5LAKHS CASH ON 20.08.2002 AND RS 5LAKHS CASH ON 24.10.2002, THEN B EFORE AO, HE GAVE THE VERSION AS STATED IN PARA 15 ABOVE. IT MUST BE REME MBERED THAT BURDEN OF PROVING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IS ON THE ASSESSEE AND IT HAS TO BE DISCHARGED BY HIM, AND HE HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF F UND AS AFORESTATED. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE VERSION OF ASS ESSEE IN THIS RESPECT. SO, WHAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS DONE WAS THAT OUT OF THE ADD ITION OF RS.18,05,000/- MADE BY AO IN RESPECT TO PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES, ON LY RS.7 LAKHS HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SATISF ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A). THE OTHER CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO HIS SOURCE FOR P URCHASING THE LAND COSTING RS.17.73 + STAMP DUTY= I.E. RS.18,05,000/- LAKHS HA VE BEEN ARRIVED BY THE LD CIT(A) BY BRINGING THE AMOUNT ADDED BY THE AO, WHIC H IN TURN HAS BEEN 16 ITA NO.517/DEL./2009 ITA NO.338/DEL./2009 CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) FOR THE PRECEDING AND T HIS ASSESSMENT YEAR TO JUSTIFY THE SOURCE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AS STATED I N PARA 17 ABOVE THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT ASSESSEES EXPLANATION OF SO URCE OF RS.5,05,000/- HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A) WITHOUT A WHISPER ABOUT THE SAME IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. LIKEWISE, THE OTHER THREE GROUNDS OF REVENUE ARE IN RESPECT OF DELETION OF RS.1.50 LAKHS WHICH THE ASSESSEES WIFE HAS GIVEN T O THE ASSESSEE; AND DELETION OF RS.2 LAKHS FROM SHRI ATTAR SINGH; AND DELETION O F RS.2.5 LAKHS FROM SHRI GANGA RAM. HERE WE SHOULD NOTE THAT THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE MISPLACED. FIRST OF ALL, THE LD CIT(A) LIKE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTE D THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THESE SOURCES TO EXPLAIN RS.11,05,000/- (I.E. RS.18,05,000 - RS. 7,00,000) AND SECONDLY THERE IS NO DELETION OF THE SAID AMOUN T AS THE REVENUE CONTENDS IN THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL. WHEREAS, THE DELETION OF THE SAID AMOUNT BY LD CIT(A) ON DIFFERENT REASONING. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO FOR PRECEDIN G AND RELEVANT A.Y. AS STATED IN PARA 17 ABOVE, SO THE LD CIT(A) SAYS THAT SINCE THIS AMOUNT WHICH IS CONFIRMED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE IS IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, SO HE HAD THE SOURCE TO BUY THE PROPERTIES. HOWEVER, W E TAKE NOTE THAT NOW BECAUSE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 30.0 4.2010, THE AMOUNTS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) ALSO HAS TAKEN TRANSFORM ATION, E.G. THE AMOUNT CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) INCLUDES THE AMOUNT CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGRICULTURE INCOME AND ALSO THE AMOUNT REFLECTED AS OPENING BALANCE, SO IN THAT 17 ITA NO.517/DEL./2009 ITA NO.338/DEL./2009 SCENARIO, ONCE THE AO HAS RECASTED THE CASH FLOW ST ATEMENT WHERE CREDIT FOR AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND OPENING BALANCE ARE TAKEN, IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT CASH TO JUSTIFY RS.11,05,000/-, THEN THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION AND IN CASE THERE IS ANY DEFICIENCY OR DIFFERENCE, THEN THAT AM OUNT BE CONFIRMED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. THEREFORE THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS 11, 05,000/- IS SET-ASIDE, AND THE ISSUES LIMITED TO THIS ADDITION IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO, TO RE-COMPUTE AS DIRECTED ABOVE. NEEDLESS TO SA Y, ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. 21. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08.07.2015 . SD/- SD/- (S. V. MEHROTRA) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 08/07/2015 TS COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI