ACIT, New Delhi V. Shri Ram Niwas Sharma, New Delhi

ITA 3505/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7080 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 148; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMB ER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3505/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ACIT VS. RAM NI WAS SHARMA CIRCLE -36 (1) THROUGH L/H RAMPATI B-33, VIKAS BHAWAN SUBHASH CH OWK, VIKAS MARG, LAXMI NEW DELHI NAGAR, DELHI (PAN : AMIPS2308H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY :- NONE ASSESSEE BY : - SHRI TARUN KUMAR, ADV. DATE OF HEARING: 17-08-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 05-09-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(APPEALS) NEW DELHI DT. 29 TH MAY, 2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND FACT IN DELETING T HE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED NET PROFIT OF RS. 32,24,772/- ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS. 5,04,000/- MADE U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, ON ACCOUNT OF BENAMI INVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASE OF PLOT SITUATED AT BAHADURGARH. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND FACT IN DELETING TH E ADDITION OF RS. 70,000/- MADE U/S. 69 OF THE I.T. ACT, ON ACCOUNT OF BENAMI INVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASE OF SHOP OF MANDAWALI. ITA NO. 3505/DEL/2009 PAGE 2 OF 10 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN ACCEPTING THE ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCES DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT PROVIDI NG AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO WHICH IS A VIOLENCE OF RULE 46A(3) OF THE I.T . RULES, 1962. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RIGHT TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME B EFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRAVEL AGENCY. A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 3.10.2005 AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSES EE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 2,31,550/- ON 31.10.2006. T HE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON 15.2.2008. THE RETU RN WAS ACCOMPANIED BY COMPUTATION SHEET, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, TAX AUD IT REPORT, BALANCE SHEET, PPF RECEIPT AND TDS CERTIFICATES ETC. THE CASE WAS SEL ECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER COMPULSORY GUIDELINES OF ACTION PLAN. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT, WAS ISSUED ON 10.4.2007 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND IN RESPONSE THERETO ASSESSEES AR APPEARED FOR HEARING FROM TIM E TO TIME AND FILED THE REQUISITE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS .40,30,320/ VIDE ORDER DATED 26.12.2008. 3. AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 26.12. 2008, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.5.2009 HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE PARTIES WAS S ENT, IN SPITE OF THE SAME, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT TO PRO SECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE, NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT B Y THE DEPARTMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT C ASE AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEF UL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE REVENUE, THEREFO RE, WE ARE DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL EXPARTE QUA REVENUE. ITA NO. 3505/DEL/2009 PAGE 3 OF 10 6. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED U PON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WEL L REASONED ORDER WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART, HENCE, THE APPEA L OF THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT AS REGARDS THE GROUND NO. 1 RELATING TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED NET PR OFIT OF RS. 32,24,772/- IS CONCERNED, THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 IN ITA NO. 3039/DEL/2009 VIDE ORDER DATED 13.11. 2014 HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DELETED THE SIMILAR ADDITION, AN D THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE SAME REASONING, THE GROUND NO. 1 IN THE PRESENT APP EAL MAY BE ALLOWED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AN D PERUSED THE RECORDS. AS REGARDS THE GROUND NO. 1 IS CONCERNED, WE FIND CONS IDERABLE COGENCY IN THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN COVERED BY THE ITAT ORDER DATED 13.11.2014 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE PREVIOUS A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 PASSED IN ITA NO. 3039/DEL/2009 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DELETED THE SIMILAR ADDITION. FOR THE S AKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE ARE REPRODUCING THE RELEVANT PORTION I.E. PARA NO. 4 T O 7 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 13.11.2014 AS UNDER:- 4. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS :- 4.1. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 32,2 4,772/- ARE BROUGHT OUT AT PARA 8.1 AND 8.2 OF THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER AT PAGE 15. THESE ARE EXTRACTED FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE 8.1 IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION, VARIOUS COMPUTER SHEETS WERE ALSO FOUND IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED HIS NET PROFIT FROM TICKETING BUSINESS ON DAY-TO-DAY BASIS. THESE COMPUTER SHEETS HAVE BEEN ARRANGED ACCORDING TO DATES. THEREAFTER THE NET PROFIT FOR THE MONTH OF JULY 2005 WAS CALCULATE D AFTER ADDING THE NET PROFIT ITA NO. 3505/DEL/2009 PAGE 4 OF 10 OF EACH DAY OF MONTH OF JULY 2005. THIS COMES TO RS . 2,68,743/-. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING HIS REGULAR B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS, HIS NET PROFIT FROM TICKETING BUSINESS ONLY FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2005-06 IS CALCULATED AS UNDER :- TOTAL NET PROFIT FOR THE MONTH OF JULY 2005 RS. 2,68,743/- NO. OF WORKING DAYS IN A MONTH 27 NET PROFIT OF ONE DAY RS. 9,953/- NO. OF WORKING DAYS IN A YEAR 324 TOTAL ESTIMATED NET PROFIT FROM TICKETING BUSI NESS ONLY 9953 X 324 = RS. 32,24,772/- 8.2. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT AS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED, THE EXPENDITURE SEEMS TO BE UNVOUCHED AND BOGUS ESPECIALLY IN THE HEAD ESTABLISHMENT, ACC OUNTING CHARGES, PROFESSIONAL FEE ETC. WHICH HAVE BEEN CLAIMED ON RE GULAR BASIS IN THE PAST WITHOUT BEING VERIFIED. 5. AFTER CALLING FOR THE REMAND REPORT AND CON SIDERING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS :- IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS ASSESSED THE NET PR OFIT FOR THE F.Y. 2004-05 PURELY ON ESTIMATE BASIS, ON THE BASIS OF SOME COMP UTER SHEETS RELATING TO THE MONTH OF JULY 2005 FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY. THIS, HOWEVER, CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR MAKING SUCH ADDITION IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT REASONS OR EVIDENCE BROUG HT ON RECORD. IT IS ALSO A WELL ESTABLISHED POSITION OF LAW THAT THE AO CANNOT PROCEED TO MAKE AN ARBITRARY ADDITION AND BASE HIS CONCLUSION PURELY O N GUESS WORK. DETERMINATION OF INCOME IS A SERIOUS MATTER AND NOT MERELY A MATHEMATICAL EXERCISE TO BE MADE ON THE WHIMS AND FANCIES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10.1 IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS TAKEN THE NET PROFIT FOR MONTH OF JULY 2005 CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF COMPU TER SHEETS AS A BASE FOR CALCULATING THE NET PROFIT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2 004-05, WHEREBY HE HAS CALCULATED THE DAILY NET PROFIT ON AVERAGE BASIS FO R THE MONTH OF JULY 2005 AND THEREAFTER CALCULATED THE YEARLY PROFIT BY ARBI TRARILY MULTIPLYING THE DAILY PROFIT WITH NUMBER OF PRESUMED WORKING DAYS IN A YE AR. 10.2 IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE IN THIS REGARD THAT WHILE MAKING SUCH AN ADDITION, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ONLY ERRED IN LAW, BUT ALSO IGNORED THE FOLLOWING F ACTS : THAT FOR CALCULATING THE PROFIT FOR THE F.Y. 2004-0 5 (A.Y. 2005-06), THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE PROFIT EARNED IN THE MON TH OF JULY 2005 FALLING ITA NO. 3505/DEL/2009 PAGE 5 OF 10 IN THE F.Y. 2005-06 (A.Y. 2006-07) AS A BASE AND CO MPLETELY IGNORED THE PROFIT CALCULATED IN VARIOUS ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED U/S 148 FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01 TO 2004-05 SUBSEQUENT TO THE SURVEY. THAT WHILE CALCULATING THE PROFIT ON ALLEGED BASIS, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETELY IGNORED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A TRAVEL A GENT AND THE MONTHS OF MAY, JUNE AND JULY ARE THE PEAK SEASON FOR TRAVE L AGENCY BUSINESS AND THIS CANNOT BE MADE THE BASIS FOR ADDITION IN THE E NTIRE YEAR. THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ARBITRARILY CALC ULATED THE PROFIT FOR THE F.Y. 2004-05 ON DAILY BASIS AS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE T HAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD EARN UNDER THE SAME TREND THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. THAT WHILE MAKING THE SEPARATE ADDITION ON THE NET PROFIT EARNED DURING THE RESPECTIVE PERIOD, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HA S COMPLETELY IGNORED AND NOT GIVEN ANY REASON FOR NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUN T THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS, THE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RESPECTIVE PERIOD AND THE TAX AUDIT REPORT FURNISHE D WITH THE RETURN. 10.3. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AU THORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO MAKE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS I N THIS REGARD, AS THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO TH EM DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR IN THE REMAND PROCEED INGS. IT IS A WELL ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT ANY EVIDENCE GATH ERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT FIRST CONFRONTING HIM WITH IT. 10.4. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS ALSO FURNISHED COPIES OF THE LETTERS DATED 25.8.2008 AND 5.9.2008 SUBMITTED TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS, WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE TOTAL OF ENTR IES FOR JULY 2005 IS RS. 2,68,743/-, IT MUST BE THE COST OF THE AIRLINES/RAI LWAYS TICKETS RECEIVED FROM THE PARTIES, WHICH CERTAINLY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE TH E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ONLY EARNS A COMMISSION ON THE SAME. T HE TOTAL COMMISSION EARNED ON THESE TICKETS IS NOT MORE THAN 1 TO 1.5% OF AIR TICKETS AND ON RAILWAY TICKETS, IT IS RS. 20/- PER TICKET. THESE I NCOMES ARE ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. COPY O F PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH SHOWS TOTAL COMMISSION AND OTHER CHARGES OF R S. 44.56 LAKHS HAS BEEN FURNISHED IN SUPPORT. 10.5. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE IN HER REMAND REPOR T DATED 11.9.2008 EXCEPT MAKING A GENERAL REMARK THAT, HOWEVER, IN ABSENCE OF ANY RELIABLE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE, REPLY CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED. THE APPELLANT WAS ALSO NOT PROVIDED OR CONFRONTED WITH THE COPIES OF COMPUTER SHEETS FOR THE MONTH OF JULY, 2005 AND THE BASIS OF ARRIVING AT A MONTHLY PROFIT OF RS. 2,68,743/- ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON CALLING FOR FURTHE R REPORT, IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF SURVEY REPORT AS REPORTED BY HER PREDECESSOR. COPY OF THE SURVEY REPORT DATED 21.10.2005 HAS ALSO BEEN ENCLOSED. ITA NO. 3505/DEL/2009 PAGE 6 OF 10 10.6. ON GOING THROUGH THE SURVEY REPORT, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS AN AD VERBATIM REPRODUCTION OF THE SURVEY REPORT ON THIS POINT. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO BASIS WHATSOEVER GIVEN IN THE SURVEY REPORT FOR ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR ON THE BASIS OF SOME ROUGH CALCULATIONS FOR ONE MONTH ONLY. IT IS A LSO OBSERVED THAT IN THE SURVEY REPORT, THE ESTIMATION OF NET PROFITS BY EXT RAPOLATION HAS BEEN DONE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, AND THEREAFTER, THE SAME H AS BEEN REPEATED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASO NS WHATSOEVER FOR DOING SO. 10.7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS HEREB Y HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE NET PRO FIT AS ABOVE. THE ADDITION OF RS. 32.24 LAKHS MADE ON THIS COUNT IS, ACCORDINGLY, HEREBY DELETED. 6. THE LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THIS FACT UAL FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE FOR THE VAR IOUS REASONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER. THE ESTIMATION BY THE AO IS ARBITRARY AND WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REJECT THE GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 9. AS REGARDS THE GROUND NO. 2 & 3 RELATING TO AD DITION OF RS. 5,04,000/- AND RS. 70,000/- ARE CONCERNED, WE FIND LD. CIT(A) HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AND DECIDED THE SAME VIDE PARA NO. 8 TO 8.7 AT PAGES 23 TO 25 IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, WE ARE RE PRODUCING HEREWITH THE RELEVANT PARAS AS UNDER:- 8. DETERMINATION: THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CAR EFULLY CONSIDERED IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADD ITION U/S 69 OF THE ACT ON ITA NO. 3505/DEL/2009 PAGE 7 OF 10 ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPER TIES IN THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCE. THIS, HOWEVER, CANNO T BE TAKEN AS A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR MAKING SUCH ADDITION IN THE A BSENCE OF ANY COGENT REASONS OR EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY BROUGHT ON RECO RD. 8.1. THE APPELLANT ON THE OTHER HAND HAS FURNISHED THE RELEVANT DETAILS IN THIS REGARD, WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. IT H AS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,04,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69, WHEN ENOUGH EVIDENCE S WERE PRODUCED ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PLOT AT: BAHADURGARH W AS PURCHASED BY SMT. RAMPATI, WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE, FOR RS. 5,04,000/- I N THE JOINT NAMES OF RAMPATI AND SH. RAM NIWAS SHARMA. COPY OF BANK STAT EMENT REFLECTING THE PAYMENT OF RS. 5,04,0001- SUBMITTED DURING THE COUR SE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE LETTER DATED 23.12.2008 HAS BEEN F URNISHED IN SUPPORT WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. 8.2. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO HAS STAT ED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE PURCH ASE DEED OF BAHADURGARH PROPERTY AND THE LINK OF MR. JAGBIR SINGH WITH THE PROPERTY. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SMT. RAMPATI PURCHASED THE PLOT FROM SH. JAGBIR SINGH. THE PURCHASE DEED EVIDENCING THE FACT HAS NOW BEEN FURN ISHED IN SUPPORT WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. 8.3 IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS DULY EXPLAINE D DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT SMT. RAMPATI SHARMA HAD MADE THE I NVESTMENT OUT OF RENTAL INCOME FROM LAXMI NAGAR BUILDING AND OTHER S AVINGS. THE LD. AO IN THE ITA NO. 3505/DEL/2009 PAGE 8 OF 10 ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS STATED THAT THE AIR OF THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ITR OF SMT. RAMPATI SHARMA EVIDENCING THE, RECEIPT OF RENTAL INCOME. THE SAME HAS NOW HAS BEEN FURNISHED IN SUPPORT WHICH HA S BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. SMT. RAMPATI SHARMA IS ASSESSED TO INCOME-TA X IN WARD 36(1), NEW DELHI. 8.4. IT IS, THUS, VERY CLEAR THAT THE PLOT AT BAHAD URGARH DOES NOT REPRESENT THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF SH. RAM NIWAS SHARMA. IN FACT, THE SAME BELONGS TO SMT. RAMPATI SHARMA, THE PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF WHICH WAS MADE BY HER OUT OF HER DECLARED SOURCE OF INCOME DU LY REFLECTED IN HER INCOME-TAX RETURN. 8.5. AS REGARDS THE OTHER PROPERTY, IT HAS BEEN SU BMITTED THAT THE LD. AO HAS AGAIN ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 70,00 0/- ULS 69 AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY AT MANDHAWALI, WHEN ENOUGH E VIDENCES WERE PRODUCED ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT THE P ROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY SH. MUKESH SHARMA, SON OF THE APPELLANT, OUT OF HIS OWN EXPLAINED SOURCE OF INCOME. COPY OF SALE DEED IN THE NAME OF SH. MUKESH SHARMA FOR PURCHASE OF SHOP AT MANDHAWALI, ALONG WITH HIS INCOME-TAX RETURN , COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT TO ESTABLIS H HIS SOURCE OF INCOME FOR MAKING THE AFORESAID INVESTMENT SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 20.12.2008 DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAV E BEEN FURNISHED IN SUPPORT WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. 8.6. IT IS, THUS, VERY CLEAR THAT THE PROPERTY AT M ANDHAWALI DOES NOT REPRESENT THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF SH. RAM NIW AS SHARMA. IN FACT, THE ITA NO. 3505/DEL/2009 PAGE 9 OF 10 SAME BELONGS TO SH. MUKESH SHARMA, THE PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF WHICH WAS MADE BY HIM OUT OF HIS DECLARED SOURCE OF INCOM E DULY REFLECTED IN HIS INCOME-TAX RETURN. 8.7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS HEREBY HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION ULS 69 OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PROPERTIE S MADE AS ABOVE. THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 5,04,000/- & RS. 70,000/- MADE ON THIS COUNT ARE, ACCORDINGLY, HEREBY DELETED. 10. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDI TION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESEE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PROPERTIES MADE, HENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS IN DISPUTE, WHICH DOES NOT NE ED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND REJECT THE GROUND NO. 2 & 3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 11. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 4 RELATING TO ADMITTI NG OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESEE HAS MADE AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UN DER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS / EVIDENCE RELIED UPON WERE FORWARDED TO THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 6.5.2009. THE REPORT OF THE AO HAS BEEN RECEIVED V IDE LETTER DATED 14.5.2009 AND ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID REPORT HAS FURNISH ED THE REJOINDER VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 26.5.2009. FROM THE RECORDS, IT REVEALS THA T AO HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED ENOUGH OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS PREVENTED BY SUF FICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING ITA NO. 3505/DEL/2009 PAGE 10 OF 10 THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO DUE TO SUDDEN DEMISE OF SH. RAM NIWAS SHARMA. HENCE, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT THE DOC UMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE RELEVANT TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND GO TO THE ROO T OF THE MATTER. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVID ENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 46A(1)(C) OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962, WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND REJECT THE GROU ND NO. 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05- 09-2016. SD/- SD/- (O.P. KANT) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER DATED: 05-09-2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A) 5.DR 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR