Virendra Pratap , Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 61(3), New Delhi

ITA 3486/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5866 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU MUKHARJI SENIOR
• Keywords: Business income; Wrong claim; Notional interest; TDS
• Section: 40(a)(ia); 133(6); 250; 44AB; 13; 148; 56

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3486/DEL./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15) SHRI VIRENDRA PRATAP, VS. ITO, WARD 61 (3), 155, TELIWARA ROAD, NEW DELHI. SADAR BAZAR, DELHI 110 006. (PAN : AFVPP5006P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VED JAIN, CA REVENUE BY : MS. RANU MUKHARJI, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.02.2021 DATE OF ORDER : 23.04.2021 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : APPELLANT, SHRI VIRENDRA PRATAP (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL SOUGHT TO S ET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.03.2018 PASSED BY THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-20, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2014-15 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IS BAD , BOTH IN THE' EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS. ITA NO.3486/DEL./2018 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN EXTENDING THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT, INSPITE OF THE SAME HAVING BEEN SELECTE D FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN MAKING ASS ESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS.89,92,097/- AS AGAINST INCOME OF RS.9, 94,900/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4(I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN MAKING ADD ITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.67,60,138/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST, IN VOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. (II) THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN INVOKING SECTION 40(A)(IA) DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE INTEREST INCOME HAS NOT B EEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EXPENDITURE AND THEREFORE THE PAYME NT IS NOT EXIGIBLE TO PROVISION OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE. (III) THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) HAS BEEN INVOKED MISINTERPRETING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. (IV) THAT THE LD. AO HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND FAC TS OF THE CASE IN APPLYING PROVISO TO SECTION 44AB TREATING T HE INTEREST INCOME AS INCOME FROM PROFESSION IGNORING THE FACT THAT AT THE MOST RS.1139862 CAN BE TREATED AS INTEREST UNDER TH E HEAD 'INCOME FROM PROFESSION'. 5(I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN MAKING ADD ITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.97,200/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE IN INTER EST DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS SHOWN IN 26AS. (II) THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE REPLY AND EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6(I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN MAKING ADD ITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.11,39,862/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME. (II) THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE DESPITE THE A SSESSEE HAVING DISCLOSED THE SAME IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCO UNT, WHICH IS THE BASIS OF INCOME DISCLOSED. (III) THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MISINTERPRET ING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA NO.3486/DEL./2018 3 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CHARGING I NTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234A, 2348 AND 234C OF THE ACT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ASSESSEE, BEING A CHARTER ED ACCOUNTANT, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME A T RS.9,94,000/-. HE IS KARTA OF M/S. VP & SONS HUF AND PARTNER IN VP & COMPANY WITH 50% SHARE OF PROFIT AND ALSO LOOKING A FTER INVESTMENT OF M/S. VP & SONS HUF IN RETURN OF FIXED SALARY AND PART OF RECEIPTS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION, ASSESSEE CLAIMED PAYMENT OF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.67,60,13 8/- MADE TO VP & SONS HUF, WHO BEING A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FIL ED HIS RETURN OF INCOME IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND SHOWN GROS S RECEIPT FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AT RS.4,18,700/- UNDER THE HEAD PROFESSION AND INTEREST INCOME OF RS.79,00,000/- U NDER THE HEAD OTHER INCOME IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. ASSES SING OFFICER (AO) NOTICED THAT SINCE THE GROSS PROFESSIONAL RECE IPTS OF ASSESSEE EXCEEDED THE THRESHOLD LIMIT, HE WAS LIABLE TO GET HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT. AO CONCLUDE D THAT ASSESSEE WHILE MAKING PAYMENT OF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.67,60,138/- TO VP & SONS HUF HAS FAILED TO DEDUC T TAX AT SOURCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND THEREBY MADE DI SALLOWANCE OF RS.67,60,138/-. ITA NO.3486/DEL./2018 4 3. AO ALSO NOTICED FROM P& L ACCOUNT OF THE HUF THA T OUT OF THE GROSS RECEIPT OF INTEREST OF RS.79,00,000/-, TH E HUF HAS MADE A PAYMENT OF RS.11,39,862/-, BUT ASSESSEE WHO HAS SHO WN INTEREST INCOME OF HUF OF RS.67,60,138/- HAS NOT SHOWN INTER EST OF RS.11,39,862/-, WHICH THE AO HAS TREATED AS UNDISCL OSED INCOME AND MADE ADDITION OF INTEREST OF RS.11,39,862/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AO ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECE IVED FROM DIFFERENT COMPANIES U/S 133 (6) OF THE ACT QUA THE CONFIRMATION OF INTEREST PAYMENT TO THE ASSESSEE AND NOTICED A DIFF ERENCE OF RS.81,05,112/-. ASSESSEE SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,07,328/- BUT FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY JUSTIFICATI ON FOR RS.97,200/- AND CONSEQUENTLY, AO MADE ADDITION THEREOF TO THE T OTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, AO FRAMED ASSESSMENT A T THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.89,92,097/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.9,94,900/-. 4. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT ( A) BY WAY OF FILING APPEAL WHO HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL. FEELIN G AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ITA NO.3486/DEL./2018 5 ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. GROUNDS NO.1, 2, & 3 6. GROUNDS NO.1, 2 & 3 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. GROUND NO.4 7. THIS GROUND PERTAINS TO ADDITION OF RS.67,60,138 /- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST BY INVOKING THE PROVI SIONS CONTAINED U/A 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 8. UNDISPUTEDLY, ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE PAYM ENT OF INTEREST EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT & GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF RS.67,60,138/- TO VP & SONS HUF. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT WHILE MAKING THIS PAYMENT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 9. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT INTEREST RECEIVED HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COLUMN INTEREST INCOME ALO NG WITH PROFESSIONAL INCOME IN PART IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUN T IN ITR-4 FORM BUT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN IN THE SCHEDULE OF OTHER SOU RCES OF ITR. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THERE IS A DISCREPAN CY IN THE INTEREST INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.79,0 0,000/- AS AGAINST ACTUAL INTEREST INCOME OF RS.78,69,388/- S HOWN IN THE FORM - 26AS. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT INTERE ST INCOME OF ITA NO.3486/DEL./2018 6 RS.11,39,862/- PAID BY VP & SONS HUF TO THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCO ME . IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE HIMSELF IS A CHARTERED ACC OUNTANT AND IS ALSO KARTA OF VP & SONS HUF AND PARTNER OF VP & COM PANY WITH 50% SHARE OF PROFIT BUT HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY SHOWING GROSS RECEIPT FROM BUSINESS AND PR OFESSION OF RS.4,18,700/- UNDER THE HEAD PROFESSION AND INTER EST INCOME OF RS.79,00,000/- IN THE OTHER INCOME IN THE P&L ACCOU NT. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE IS ALSO LOOKING AFTER THE INVESTMENT OF M/S. VP & SONS HUF AND IN RETURN GETS A FIXED SALAR Y AND PART OF THE RECEIPTS. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSES SEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.7,85,00,000/- ON WHICH HE HAS RECE IVED INTEREST TO THE TUNE OF RS.79,00,000/-. 10. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID UNDISPUTED FAC TS ON RECORD, GROUNDS RAISED AND ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE LD. A UTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) THRASHED THE FACTS IN DETAIL AND RETURNED THE FOLLO WING FINDINGS :- 6.13 ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THE CLA IM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE INVESTMENTS BELONGS TO THE HUF A ND NOT TO THE APPELLANT DESERVES TO BE REJECTED AND THE GROUNDS O F REJECTION ARE SUMMARIZED BELOW: - THE INVESTMENT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT AND THE DEDUCTORS HAVE DEDUCTED THE TDS SHOWING THE APPELLANT AS DEDUCTEE IN HIS PAN. ITA NO.3486/DEL./2018 7 THE ENTIRE TDS HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. EVEN THE REFUND ARISING DUE TO TH IS HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF INCO ME. NO INTEREST PAYMENT EITHER BY CASH OR BY CHEQUE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO THE HUF AND THIS HAS NOT B EEN SHOWN EVEN PAYABLE TO THE HUF IN THE RETURN OF INCO ME. APPELLANT HAS ACCEPTED THIS FACT THAT ONLY NOTIONAL PAYMENT OF INTEREST HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH IS AGAINST THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPAL AN D THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT. THE APPELLANT BEING A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT BY PROFESSION IS FULLY AWARE A BOUT THE INCOME TAX LAWS AND ACCOUNTING SYSTEM. DESPITE THIS, SUCH TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE ACT. THE INVESTMENTS TO THE TUNE OF RS.21,85,OL,767 /- I S RELATED TO EARNING OF INTEREST INCOME HAS NEITHER B EEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE APPELLANT NOR IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF HUF. EVEN THE ASSET AND LIA BILITY HAS ALSO NOT BEEN SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RET URN OF INCOME DESPITE THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE INVESTMENT IN MOVABLE PROPERTIES ARE MADE IN TH E NAME AND PAN OF THE APPELLANT BUT THE FUNDS WERE PROVIDED AND ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE HUF. HUF HAS SHOWN ONLY RS.9,31,116/- AS INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE APPELLANT C OULD NOT EXPLAIN WHY THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT WAS NOT SHOWN IN THE HANDS OF HUF IF IT BELONGS TO THE HUF. THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE HAND WRITTEN ACCOUNTS ARE N OT SUPPORTED BY THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED EITHER THE APPELLANT OR THE HUF. BY SUCH DEVICE, INTEREST INCOME WHICH IS EARNED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE HUF AS PER THEIR CLAIM WHICH IS O F RS.94,46,241/- WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION ONLY TO THE TUNE OF RS.20,70,978/- (11,39,862 + 9,31,116) BY THE APPELL ANT AND THE HUF IN THE RETURN OF INCOME RESPECTIVELY. NEITHER THE APPELLANT NOR THE HUF HAS CLAIMED ANY EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 57(III) OF THE ACT WHICH HAS THE DIRECT NEXUS TO EARN SUCH INTEREST INCOME. HENCE, THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION IS NOT GENUINE AND IS A COLOURABLE DEVICE TO EVADE THE TAX. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES HAS HELD THAT TAX AUTHORITIES SHOUL D TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ENTIRE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES PRODUCE D BY THE ITA NO.3486/DEL./2018 8 ASSESSEE TO ARRIVE THE CORRECT FACTS AND HELD THAT COLOURABLE DEVICES CANNOT BE PART OF TAX PLANNING. IN THE CASE OF MCDOWELL & CO. 154ITR 148 HON'BLE SU PREME COURT HAS HELD THAT 'SO FAR AS THE CONTENTION THAT IT IS OPEN TO EVERY ONE TO SO ARRANGE HIS AFFAIRS AS TO REDUCE TH E BRUNT OF TAXATION TO THE MINIMUM, WAS CONCERNED, THE TAX PLA NNING MAY BE LEGITIMATE PROVIDED IT IS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK O F LAW. COLOURABLE DEVICES CANNOT BE PART OF TAX PLANNING A ND IT IS WRONG TO ENCOURAGE OR ENTERTAIN THE BELIEF THAT IT IS HON OURABLE TO AVOID THE PAYMENT OF TAX BY RESTORING TO DUBIOUS METHODS. IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF EVERY CITIZEN TO PAY THE TAXES HONEST LY WITHOUT RESORTING TO SUBTERFUGES. COURTS ARE NOW CONCERNING THEMSELVES NOT MERELY WITH THE GENUINENESS OF A TRANSACTION, B UT WITH THE INTENDED EFFECT OF IT FOR FISCAL PURPOSES. NO ONE C AN NOW GET AWAY WITH A TAX AVOIDANCE PROJECT WITH THE MERE STATEMEN T THAT THERE IS NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT IT.' IN THE CASE OF DURGA PRASAD MORE 82 ITR 540 HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD '8. IT IS TRUE THAT AN APPARENT MUST BE CONSIDERED REAL UNTIL IT IS SHOWN THAT THERE ARE REASONS TO BE LIEVE THAT THE APPARENT IS NOT THE REAL PARTY WHO RELIES 011 A REC ITAL IN A DEED HAS TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF THOSE RECITALS, OTHER WISE IT WILL BE VERY EASY TO MAKE SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS IN DOCUME NTS EITHER EXECUTED OR TAKEN BY A PARTY AND RELY ON THOSE RECI TALS. IF ALL THAT AN ASSESSEE WHO WANTS TO EVADE TAX IS TO HAVE SOME RECITALS MADE IN A DOCUMENT EITHER EXECUTED BY HIM OR EXECUTED IN HIS FAVOUR THEN THE DOOR WILL BE LEFT WIDE OPEN TO EVADE TAX. A LITTLE PROBING WAS SUFFICIENT IN THE PRESENT CASE TO SHOW THAT THE APPARENT WAS NOT THE REAL. THE TAXING AUTHORITIES WERE NOT REQUI RED TO PUT ON BLINKERS WHILE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BE FORE THEM. THEY WERE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIR CUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY OF THE RECITALS MADE IN THOSE DOCUMENTS. 13 .SCIENCE HAS NOT YET INVENTED ANY INSTRUMENT TO TEST THE RELIABILITY OF THE EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE A COU RT OR TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS HAVE TO JUDGE T HE EVIDENCE BEFORE THEM BY APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILI TIES.' IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL 214 ITR 801 HON'BLE SUP REME COURT HAS AGAIN GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF HUMAN PROBA BILITY AND HELD THAT 'THE MAJORITY OPINION AFTER CONSIDERING S URROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBAB ILITIES HAD RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM ABOUT THE AMOUNT BEING HER WINNING FROM RACES, WAS NOT GENUINE. IT C OULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID AMOUNTS HAD BEEN REJECTED UNREASONABLY AND THAT THE FINDING THAT THE SAID AMOUNTS WERE INCOME OF THE AP PELLANT FROM OTHER SOURCES WAS NOT BASED ON EVIDENCE.' ITA NO.3486/DEL./2018 9 THE HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF SOM NATH MAINI, 306 ITR 414 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- THAT THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT INCOM E IS SUBJECT TO TAX IS ON THE REVENUE BUT ON THE FACTS, TO SHOW THAT THE TRANSACTION IS GENUINE, BURDEN IS PRIMARILY ON THE ASSESSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO APPLY THE TEST OF HUMAN PRO BABILITIES FOR DECIDING GENUINENESS OR OTHERWISE OF A PARTICULAR T RANSACTION. MERE LEADING OF EVIDENCE THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS G ENUINE, CANNOT BE CONCLUSIVE. SUCH EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A REASONABLE WAY. GENUINEN ESS OF THE TRANSACTION CAN BE REJECTED EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE LE ADS EVIDENCE WHICH IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY, EVEN IF THE DEPARTMENT DO ES NOT LEAD ANY EVIDENCE ON SUCH AN ISSUE' . 6.13 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, I HAVE NO HESITATIO N TO HOLD THAT ENTIRE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.79,00,000/- IS TO BE T AXED UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' IN THE HANDS OF TH E APPELLANT WHICH IS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AS BUSINESS INCOM E IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY IS CARRIED OUT FOR THIS. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS MADE A FALSE. CLAIM OF T HE PAYMENT OF RS.67,60,138/- WHICH IS NEITHER PAID NOR SHOWN BY T HE APPELLANT AS PAYABLE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THIS IS NOT PER MISSIBLE EITHER UNDER CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING O[ MERCANTILE SYSTE M OF ACCOUNTING. IT IS STRANGE HOW THIS DEDUCTION IS ALL OWABLE IF THERE IS NEITHER ANY PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO THE HUF NOR THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT AS 'PAY ABLE TO THE HUF' IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND RETURN OF INCOME. IT APPEARS THIS INCOME OF RS.79,00,000/- IS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME JUST TO PRE-EMPT AND EXPLAIN THE INFORMATION WHICH IS AV AILABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT IN THE FORM OF 26AS. THE APPELLANT BEING A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT BY PROFESSION IS FULLY AWARE ABOUT THE I NCOME TAX LAWS AND ACCOUNTING SYSTEM. DESPITE THIS, SUCH TRAN SACTIONS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE ACT. 6.14 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MADE THE ADDITI ON OF RS.97,200/- ON THE GROUND THAT U/S 133(6) INFORMATI ON FROM DIFFERENT COMPANIES WERE OBTAINED REGARDING THE CON FIRMATION OF INTEREST PAYMENT TO THE APPELLANT AND THERE IS A DI FFERENCE OF RS.2,05,112/- IN THE INTEREST RECEIPTS AND THE INTE REST DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR AS PER DETAILED DISCU SSION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MENTI ONED SUPRA IN PARA 4.1. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISF IED ABOUT THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE DIFFEREN CE OF RS.107328/- WHICH WAS ACCEPTED. AS THE APPELLANT CO ULD NOT GIVE ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR RS.97,200/- THE ADDITION OF T HIS AMOUNT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6.15 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, TH E APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE O N THE BASIS ITA NO.3486/DEL./2018 10 OF 26AS DETAILS AND THERE MIGHT BE SOME RECONCILIAT ION DIFFERENCE. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS TOTALLY FAIL ED TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM THAT THE FIGURE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE AMOUN T OF INTEREST SHOWN IN A CHART IN PARA 5.1 SUPRA IS WRONG. THE CO NTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THIS CAN BE RECONCILED O NCE HE IS PROVIDED THE REPLIES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS NO BASIS AS THIS WAS DULY CONFRONTED, DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND REPLY REGARDING THE DIFF ERENCE OF MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HAD TH ERE BEEN ANY EXPLANATION THIS COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BEFORE AS SESSING OFFICER OR DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS WHICH WAS NOT DONE. IN THIS LIGHT, THE ADDITION OF RS.97,200/ - IS CONFIRMED. 6.16 AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE DETAILED ENQUIRY IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED IT U/S 40(A)(IA) WHEREAS IT SHOULD BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCES' ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLAN T HAS NEVER PAID THIS AMOUNT TO THE HUF NOR CLAIMED THIS AS PAYABLE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND ALSO CLAIMED THE ENTIRE TDS CR EDIT AND THE RESULTED REFUND. AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREA DY TAXED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.11,39,862/- AND RS.97,200/- A S 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.67,60,138/ - IS TO BE FURTHER ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOT UND ER SECTION 40(A)(IA). FURTHER, NO DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT AGAINST THIS INCOME, AS THE EXPENSES WHICH IS ALLOW ABLE TO BE DEDUCTED UNDER SECTION 56 IS ONLY U/S 57(III) WHICH HAS THE DIRECT NEXUS OF EARNING SUCH INCOME AND NO SUCH EXPENSE HA S BEEN CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE APPELLANT NO R IT IS THERE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT REPRODUCED SUPRA. IN THIS LIGHT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO TAX THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.79,97,200/- (79,00,000 + 97,200) AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. IT IS CLARIFIED FURTHER THAT NO ENHANCEM ENT OF INCOME HAS BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE AS THE AMOUNT OF DISALLO WANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF RS.79,00,000/- (6760 138 + 1139862) WHICH IS THE SAME AS DECIDED IN THIS APPEL LATE ORDER. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT V. JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MARKETING (P.) LTD. 56 TAXMANN.COM 286 THAT- THE PROVISION OF APPEAL, BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IS MADE MOR E AS A CHECK ON THE ABUSE OF POWER AND AUTHORITY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHILST IT IS TRUE THAT IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT PROPER SCRUTINY OF THE MATERIAL, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE TWO APPELLATE AUT HORITIES VIZ. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND TRIBUNAL ARE ALSO ITA NO.3486/DEL./2018 11 FORUMS FOR FACT-FINDING, IN THE EVENT OF ASSESSING OFFICER FAILING TO DISCHARGE HIS FUNCTIONS PROPERLY, THE OB LIGATION TO CONDUCT PROPER INQUIRY ON FACTS WOULD NATURALLY SHIFT TO THE DOOR OF THE SAID APPELLATE AUTHORITY. FOR SUCH PURPOSES, ONE ONLY NEED TO POINT OUT ONE STEP IN TH E PROCEDURE IN APPEAL AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 250 WH EREIN, BESIDES IT BEING OBLIGATORY FOR THE RIGHT OF HEARIN G TO BE AFFORDED NOT ONLY TO THE ASSESSEE BUT ALSO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS GIVEN THE LIBERTY TO MAKE, OR CAUSE TO BE MADE, 'FURTHER INQUIRY', IN TE RMS OF SUB-SECTION (4). [PARA 38] HOWEVER, I AM RESTRICTING MYSELF TO GIVE ANY DECISI ON ON THE PROFESSIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT IN TH E RETURN OF INCOME WHICH IS NOT A SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL. BES IDES THIS, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT MADE REGARDING NON DEDUCTION OF TDS AND NOT AUDITING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAS BECOME ACADE MIC IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE INTEREST INCOME S HOULD BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. 11. WE HAVE PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) PARTICULARLY PARAS 6.1 TO 6.3, WHEREIN EVERY MINUTE DETAILS AND ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSES SEE HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH. STRANGELY ENOUGH, THE ASSESSEE WHO HIM SELF IS A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE INHE RENT DISCREPANCIES IN FURNISHING THE ITR AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WHICH GO TO PROVE THAT THESE DISCREPANCIES HAVE BEE N CREATED JUST TO CONFUSE THE ENTIRE PROPOSITION. ASSESSEE, BEING A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, WAS REQUIRED TO BRING ON RECORD HIS CAS E IN A SIMPLE, TRANSPARENT AND LUCID MANNER. NOT ONLY THIS, WRITT EN SYNOPSIS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS RUNNING INTO 10 PAGES AGAIN CONTAINS ACADEMIC DISCUSSION THAN TO DISPUTE THE SPECIFIC ITA NO.3486/DEL./2018 12 FINDINGS AND TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING RETURNED BY THE LD. CIT (A). SOME OF THE GLARING DISCREPANCIES IN FURNISHING NEC ESSARY PARTICULARS IN ITR WHICH OTHERWISE AMOUNT TO SUPPRE SSION OF FACTS INTER ALIA ARE :- (I) THAT IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESS EE CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE INVESTMENT BEING A SENIOR CITIZEN ON BEHALF OF HIS HUF AND RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.79,00,000/- AS INTEREST ON BEHALF OF THE HUF AND OUT OF THIS INTEREST, HE HAS PAID BACK RS.67,60,138 /- TO THE HUF AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.11,39,862/- IS SHOWN AS HIS OWN INCOME BUT THE FACTS ON RECORD ARE OTHERWISE BECAUSE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALL Y CLAIMED TO HAVE INVESTED THE MONEY OF HUF ON WHICH HE HAS RECEIVED RS.79,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTERE ST INCOME ON BEHALF OF HUF THEN WHY THIS AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN BY THE HUF IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME A S DISCUSSED IN PARA 6.4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER; (II) THAT SECONDLY, DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), WHEN ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UP ON TO BRING ON RECORD EVIDENCE THE DETAIL OF BANK ACCO UNT AND CHEQUE DETAILS QUA THE ALLEGED PAYMENT OF RS.67,60,138/- MADE TO THE HUF, THE LD. AR FOR THE ITA NO.3486/DEL./2018 13 ASSESSEE HAD FAIRLY CONCEDED BEFORE LD. CIT (A) VID E ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 20.03.2018 THAT, NO SUCH PAYMENT IS MADE TO HUF EVER AND IT IS THE NOTIONAL INTEREST ONLY WHICH IS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INC OME. THESE FACTS HAVE ALSO BEEN CONCEDED BY THE LD. AR F OR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE BENCH. 12. FURTHERMORE, WHEN ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INC OME FILED IN ITR-4 HAS SHOWN IN THE COLUMN OF NATURE OF BUSINES S THE BUSINESS OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT/AUDITOR ETC. UNDER THE CODE 601, THERE IS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE AS A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, THE INTEREST INCOME SHOULD HAVE COME UN DER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, AS OBSERVED BY LD. CIT (A). 13. NOT ONLY THIS, ASSESSEE AND HUF HAVE SHOWN UNSE CURED LOAN FROM EACH OTHER TO THE TUNE OF RS.87,84,829/- BUT R ETURN OF INCOME IS NOT DEPICTING ANY SUCH UNSECURED LOAN FROM ANY F AMILY MEMBER AND HUF RATHER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AMOUNT OF RS .1,05,46,600/- IS SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD DEPOSITS, LOANS & ADVANCES ON THE ASSETS SIDE BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT IN THE LIABILIT Y SIDE. FURTHERMORE, TOTAL FUNDS PROVIDED BY VP & SONS HUF WERE RS.6,97,15,071/- FOR THE TOTAL INVESTMENT MADE OF R S.7,85,00,000/-, THE AMOUNT OF RS.6,97,15,071/- IS NOT APPEARING IN THE LIABILITY SIDE OF THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE NOR HE HAS SHOWN ANY ITA NO.3486/DEL./2018 14 AMOUNT UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENT OR CURRENT ASSE TS RELATING TO THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.79,00,000/-. MOREOVER, W HEN IT IS CATEGORIC CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS MADE ENT IRE INVESTMENT OF HUF IN ITS OWN NAME BEING A SENIOR CITIZEN TO ATTRA CT MORE INTEREST THEN SUCH AMOUNT WAS REQUIRED TO BE SHOWN BY THE AS SESSEE AS UNSECURED LOAN IN ITS ACCOUNT. DURING THE COURSE O F ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE BENCH, ALL THESE QUESTIONS REMAINED UNAN SWERED. 14. DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT ON RECORD ONE HANDWRITTEN DOCUMENT RUNNING INTO TWO PAGES TO EXPLAIN THE INVESTMENT IN THE FORM OF STAT EMENT OF INCOME OF VP & SONS HUF, BUT HE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. ANOTHER SUCH HANDWRITTEN DOCUMENT WAS ALSO BROUGHT BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A) DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH HAS B EEN DULY EXTRACTED AND DISCUSSED IN PARA 6.9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A). LD. CIT(A) HAS SPECIFICALLY RE TURNED THE FINDINGS IN PARA 6.10 WITH REGARD TO THE HANDWRITTE N DOCUMENTS THAT, THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE HANDWRITTEN ACCOUNT HAS AL SO BEEN VERIFIED FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE HUF AND IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF HUF, NO SUCH TRANSACTION HAS BE EN REFLECTED. DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ADDRESS AND CONTROVERT AFORESAID FINDINGS RETURN ED BY LD. CIT(A). ITA NO.3486/DEL./2018 15 15. SO, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEN THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT DISCUSSED THE INVESTMENT OF RS.21,85,01,767/- IN HI S RETURN OF INCOME NOR IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE HUF THEN IT IS SURPRISING AS TO HOW THE INCOME OF RS.79,00,000/- IS BEING EXP LAINED ON THE ONE PRETEXT OR THE OTHER. BECAUSE THE HUF HAS ONLY SHOWN RS.9,31,116/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN RETUR N OF INCOME BUT ENTIRE INVESTMENT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN IN THE HANDS O F HUF. 16. HAD THESE INVESTMENTS BELONG TO HUF IT WOULD HA VE CERTAINLY BEEN REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF HUF ITSELF. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A FALSE CLAIM OF RS .67,60,138/- WHICH IS NEITHER PAID NOR SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS PAYABLE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THE CA SH SYSTEM AND MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. THIS FACT GOES TO PROVE THAT INCOME OF RS.79,00,000/- IS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE JUST TO PREEMPT AND EXPLAIN THE INFORMATIO N WHICH IS AVAILABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT IN THE FORM OF 26AS TO EVADE THE TAX. 17. FROM THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, WHEN IT IS PROVED ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.79,00,000 /- AS INTEREST INCOME OUT OF WHICH HE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.67,60,138/- HAS BEEN PAID TO THE HUF, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.79,00,000/- IS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES BECAUSE IT IS NOT BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE B EING A CHARTERED ITA NO.3486/DEL./2018 16 ACCOUNTANT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, LD. CIT (A) HA S RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.67,60,138/- IS NOT T O BE MADE ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT RATHER IT IS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM OTHER SOURCES 18. SO, IN VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED VIEW THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY ARRIVED AT THE DECISION THA T ENTIRE TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHO BEING A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WAS SUPPOSED TO COME U P WITH CLEAN HANDS, IS A COLOURABLE DEVICE TO EVADE THE TAX AND THE ENTIRE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.79,00,000/- HAS BEEN RIGHTLY TAXED UND ER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASS ESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO.4 IS DETERMINED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.5 19. AO HAS MADE SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS.97,200/- ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT FROM DIFFERENT COMPANIES QUA CONFIRMATION OF INTEREST PAYMENT TO T HE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.2,05,112/- IN THE INTEREST RECEIVED AND THE INTEREST DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO GOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,07,328/- AND HAS MADE ADD ITION OF ITA NO.3486/DEL./2018 17 REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.97,200/- WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A). 20. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THIS ADD ITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS THERE IS SOME RECONCILIATION ISSUE B UT WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE AO ALL THE FACTS REGARDING DIFFERENCE OF INTEREST RECE IVED FROM MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO, T HERE WAS NO OTHER RECONCILIATION ISSUE LEFT TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE AO. ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY FACTS BE FORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS TO HO W THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.97,200/- IS NOT ADDRESSED DURING RECONCILIATI ON. SO, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY CO NFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.97,200/-, HENCE GROUND NO.5 IS DETER MINED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.6 21. ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.11,39,86 2/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INTEREST. AS DISC USSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAS UNDER GROUND NO.4, WHEN INTEREST IN COME OF RS.79,00,000- HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED AS INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES AS ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID THIS AMOUNT TO HU F NOR CLAIMED THIS AS PAYABLE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BUT AT THE SAME TIME CLAIMED ITA NO.3486/DEL./2018 18 THE ENTIRE TDS CREDIT AND THE RESULTED REFUND, THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.11,39,862/- CANNOT BE TAXED TWICE, SO INTEREST I NCOME OF RS.11,39,862/- IS PART AND PARCEL OF TOTAL INTEREST INCOME OF RS.79,00,000/- (RS.67,60,138/- CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO HUF + RS.11,39,862/- BEING THE INTEREST INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE = RS.79,00,000/-). 22. EVEN FROM THE GROUND NO.6 FRAMED BY THE ASSESSE E, IT IS NOT DISCERNIBLE AS TO HOW AND WHERE THE LD. CIT (A) WEN T WRONG. SO, WHEN AMOUNT OF RS.11,39,862/- HAS BEEN TREATED AS I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BEING PART OF AMOUNT OF RS.79,00,000/ - SEPARATE ADDITION THEREOF ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME CANNOT BE MADE. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO.6 RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 23. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DIRECT ED THE AO TO TAX THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.79,97,200/- (RS.67,60,138/- + RS.11,39,862/- + RS.97,200/- = RS.79,97,200/-) AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INC OME. 24. BEFORE PARTING WITH THIS ORDER, IT IS BROUGHT O N RECORD THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHO UT BRINGING ON RECORD REASONS TO DISLODGE THE FINDINGS RETURNED BY LD. CIT (A) WHICH FACT IS EVIDENT FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RA ISED BY THE ITA NO.3486/DEL./2018 19 ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE LARGELY CHALLENGED THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT HAS NEVER CHALLENGED THE FIND INGS RETURNED BY LD. CIT (A). SO, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO BRI NG ON RECORD ANY PERVERSITY OR ILLEGALITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASS ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH ARE FINDINGS ON THE FACTS BASED UPON M ATERIAL EVIDENCE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL. 25. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021. SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) (KULDIP SI NGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 23 RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021. TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-20, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.