ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. SPG Finvest Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3736/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2541 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAIN CA SHRI ASHISH GOEL; UMANG LUTHRA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund; Additional evidence
• Section: 13; 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) IT A NO. 3736 /DEL/20 17 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI. V. M/S. SPG FINVEST PVT. LTD., 1111, NEW DELHI HOUSE, 27 BARAKHAMBA ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI. TAN/PAN: AABCS3934P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI VIPUL KASHYAP, SR.D.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VED JAIN, CA, SHRI ASHISH GOEL AND MS. UMANG LUTHRA, ADV. DATE OF HEARING: 17 11 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27 11 2020 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.03.2017, PASSED BY LD. CIT (APPEALS)-XXVII, NEW DELHI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S.143(3)/144 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCE OVERL OOKING THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN BY RULE 46A WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ITA NO.3736/DEL/2017 2 EXPLAINED ANY CAUSE WHICH PREVENTED IT FROM PROVIDI NG EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TIRE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.3,00,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SH ARE PREMIUM OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY FAILED TO EXPLAIN TIRE REASONS FOR HIGH SHARE PREMIUM/CAPI TAL WHICH WAS NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THE ASSETS DEPICTED BY TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N OFRS. 27,88,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN WHEREIN TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS, CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTITY OF THE LENDER AND THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY TIRE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT MATE RIAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT AGAINST THE SAID ADDITION. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TIRE C ASE, TIRE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING TIRE ADDITI ON OF RS. 1,31,27,449/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MADE INVESTMENT IN NEW COMPANIES AT MUCH HIGHER PRICE TH AN ITS REAL WORTH IN THE PREVIOUS AND THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION AND TIRE DETAILS FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY TIRE ASSESS EE COMPANY ARE INCOMPLETE AND INADEQUATE. 5. (A) THE ORDER OF TIRE LD.CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. (B) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AME ND ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE O F THE ITA NO.3736/DEL/2017 3 HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. VED JAIN SUBMITTED THAT HERE THE MAIN ADDITION PERTAINS TO; I) SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM OF RS.3 CRORE; II) ADDITI ON OF RS.27,88,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN AND; II I) LASTLY, ADDITION OF RS.1,31,27,449/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENTS. HOWEVER, MOST OF THESE ADDITIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE U/SS. 68 AND 69 DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE I MPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR BUT PERTAIN TO EARLIER ASSESSMENT Y EAR. HE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT( A) IN THIS REGARD. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS STRONGLY RELIED UP ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS, AND THEREFORE, HE WAS JUSTIFIE D IN MAKING THE ADDITION. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT FINDIN GS GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AS WELL AS MATERIAL REFERRED TO BEFORE US. IN SO FAR AS THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.1 TH AT LD. CIT (A) HAS URGED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS BY ADMITTIN G FRESH EVIDENCE OVERLOOKING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FORWARDED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CES FILED BEFORE HIM UNDER RULE 46A TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE AND VERIFY AND INQUIRE THE SAME AFTER GIVIN G DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD AND SUBM IT HIS REMAND REPORT. THE REASONS MENTIONED BY HIM FOR ADM ITTING ITA NO.3736/DEL/2017 4 THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WAS THAT, IN THE RESPECT O F ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO SHOW CAU SE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO OCCASION THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE FILED SUCH EVID ENCES IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THA T THERE IS NO PROPER AVERMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RE GARD TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PARTICULARLY WHEN HUGE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WHICH INCLUDED THE AMOUNT ADDED U/SS. 68 & 69 WHICH ARE CARRIED FORWARD FROM THE EA RLIER YEARS, AND THIS FACT IS CLEARLY BORNE OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ALREADY ON RECORD BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMED COPY OF LED GER ACCOUNTS, CONFIRMATIONS AND BANK STATEMENT, ETC. SI NCE, AS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LD. CIT(A) THERE WAS A CLE AR VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ONLY AD MITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BUT HAS ALSO GIVEN DUE OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SAME. THE REMISSNE SS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT PARTAKE TH E PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 AS RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 CRORES ON ACC OUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM, IT HAS BEEN BROUGH T ON RECORD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFO RE THE LD. CIT (A) THAT ALL THE SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIU M WAS RECEIVED IN THE BOOKS IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND NOT I N THIS YEAR WHICH WAS EVIDENT FROM THE BALANCE SHEET ITSELF:- ITA NO.3736/DEL/2017 5 PARTICULARS OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2011 CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2012 AUTHORIZED SHARE CAPITAL RS.89,00,000/- RS.89,00,000/- PAID UP SHARE CAPITAL RS.88,55,480/- RS.88,55,480/- SHARE PREMIUM RS.6,17,05,920/- RS.6,17,05,920/- THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS NO INCREASE IN THE PAID UP SHARE CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY AND HAS ALSO NOT RECEI VED ANY SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY OBSERVED THA T ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF SHARE PRE MIUM AND SHARE CAPITAL AND HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.3 CRO RE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68. 6. LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERV ING THAT ADDITION U/S.68 CANNOT BE MADE, BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF RS.3 CRORE ARE BEING CARRIED FORWARD FROM EARLIER YEARS WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM LETTER DATED 4 TH MARCH, 2015 FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THERE HAS BEEN NO INCREASE IN PAID UP SHARE CAPITAL. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MAD E U/S.68 WAS DELETED. ON THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INF IRMITY EITHER IN LAW OR ON FACTS BECAUSE SUCH AN ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE U/S.68 IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ACCORD INGLY, GROUND NO.2 AS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN SO FAR AS ADDITION OF RS.27,88,000/- ON ACCOU NT OF ITA NO.3736/DEL/2017 6 UNSECURED LOAN, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.27,88, 000/- WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. DMC EDUCATION LTD., BUT MOST OF THE LOAN WAS RECEIVED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AN D THIS YEAR ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ONLY LOAN OF RS.2,88,000/-; A ND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.25 LACS WAS OPENING BALANCE. REGARDING THE FRESH LOAN OF RS.2,88,000/- THE ASSES SEE HAD FILED COPY OF CONFIRMATION, LEDGER ACCOUNT, COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE LENDER AND ALSO COPY OF BANK STATEMEN T OF THE LENDER. ALL THESE EVIDENCES WERE FILED AS ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), BECAUSE THESE DOCUMENTS WER E NEVER REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THESE EVIDENCES WERE FORWAR DED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ITS REMAND REPORT, WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF MATERIAL AND ASSESS EES SUBMISSION, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITIO N AFTER OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER: 8.4 THIS ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF R S.27,88,000 ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS. THE ALLEGATION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED T O PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE GENUINENESS, CREDIT WORT HINESS AND IDENTITY OF THE LENDERS. LD AR BROUGHT TO MY NO TICE THE FACT THAT UNSECURED LOANS ON 31ST MARCH 2011 WERE AMOUNTING TO RS.60,63,790 OUT OF WHICH AN AMOUNT OF RS. 25 LAKHS PERTAINED TO DMC EDUCATION LIMITED AND THE RE MAINING AMOUNT OF RS.35,63,790 PERTAINED TO ALL OTHER UNSEC URED LOANS. DURING THE YEAR ALL OTHER LOANS WERE PAID BA CK, APART ITA NO.3736/DEL/2017 7 FROM DMC EDUCATION LIMITED. IN THIS WAY IT WAS STAT ED THAT ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,88,000 PERTAINED TO THE LOAN S RECEIVED DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE ONLY LE NDER IS DMC EDUCATION LIMITED. EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A, IN THIS REGARD WERE FILED IN THE FORM OF LEDGER ACCOUNT, CO NFIRMATION, RETURN OF INCOME OF DMC EDUCATION LIMITED AND BANK STATEMENT OF DMC EDUCATION LIMITED, SHOWING THE OUT FLOW OF CASH. THE ONLY OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD RAISED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT WAS THAT THE PAN OF THE DMC LIMITED WAS NOT PROVIDED. HOWEVER THE LD. A R IN HIS REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT CLARIFIED THAT THE I TR OF DMC LIMITED HAS BEEN FILED AS THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHEREBY THE PAN NUMBER OF THE SAME IS DULY MENTIONED. WITH REGARD TO THE A.OS CONTENTION IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED BEFORE THE PAYMENT OF THIS AMOUNT. I OBSE RVE THAT ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.30,000 IN CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSI TED BEFORE THE ISSUE OF CHEQUE AMOUNTING TO RS.2,88,000 . IN VIEW OF ALL THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES I FIND THAT ASSE SSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRATED BY WAY OF DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCES THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF DMC EDUCATION LIMITED AND ALSO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IN VIE W OF THIS ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT O F LOAN RECEIVED FROM DMC EDUCATION LIMITED AMOUNTING TO RS.2,88,000 IS HEREBY DELETED. SINCE OTHER LOANS PE RTAIN TO EARLIER YEARS, NO ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 CAN BE MADE. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT FINDING AND ALSO THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW, WE FIND THAT OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.27,88,000 /-, AMOUNT ITA NO.3736/DEL/2017 8 OF RS.25 LACS PERTAINED TO THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT Y EAR AND WAS APPEARING AS UNSECURED LOAN IN THE BALANCE SHEE T AS ON 31.03.2011. MOST OF THE UNSECURED LOAN WHERE IN FAC T PAID BACK DURING THE YEAR AND ONLY AMOUNT OF RS.2,88,000 /- WAS RECEIVED IN THIS YEAR AS FRESH LOAN. LD. CIT(A) EXA MINED THE GENUINENESS OF FRESH LOAN OF RS.2,88,000/- AND FOUN D THAT IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER M/S. DM C EDUCATION LTD. AND ALSO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRAN SACTION HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF VA RIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) BASED ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS CANNOT BE TINKERED WITHOUT ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL TO REBUT. ACCORDINGLY , THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS UPHELD. 9. LASTLY, AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.1,31,27,44 9/-, THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INVESTME NT IN EQUITY INSTRUMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,31,27,449/- WH ICH HAS BEEN ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLEGING THAT T HESE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. IT WAS POINTED OUT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT OUT OF TOTAL CLOSING INVESTMENT OF RS.1,31,27,449/-, INVESTMENT AMOUNTIN G TO RS.48,27,449/- PERTAINS TO THE EARLIER YEARS AND HE NCE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE WITH RESPECT TO SAID AMOUNT IN THIS YEAR. AS REGARDS, THE BALANCE INVESTMENT OF RS.83 L ACS, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT SAME HAS BEEN MADE OUT OF THE FUND S DULY DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH HAS NOT BEE N DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY IT CA NNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT INVESTMENT MADE U/S.69 WAS OUT OF ITA NO.3736/DEL/2017 9 UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. LD. CIT (A) AFTER EXAMINING TH E MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A SSESSEE HAS OBSERVED AND HELD AS UNDER: THIS ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO INVESTMENT OF RS. 1,3 1,27,499 MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN GOVERNMENT AND OTHER SECURI TIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THIS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED INVESTMENTS ALLEGING THAT THE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. IN THE DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER RULE 46A, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAI NED THAT THE INVESTMENT HAVE BEEN MADE IN FIVE COMPANIES NAM ELY TOP CLASS ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, RMR BUILD COM. P RIVATE LIMITED, MILI AND INVESTMENT TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED, MAGNOLIA ADVERTISE PRIVATE LIMITED, VIZ-WISE COMMERCE PRIVAT E LIMITED AND K.K. KABRA MAIL AMOUNTING TO RS.89,284 AND VIZ- WISE COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED AMOUNTING TO RS.47,37,625 MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND NOT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION. CONFIRMED COPIES OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THESE TWO ENT ITIES WERE FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. WITH REGARD TO THE R EMAINING INVESTMENT, EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF COPY OF FORM N O. 2 PURSUANT TO SECTION 75(1) OF THE COMPANIES ACT. IN THIS RESPECT OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARE AND THE COPY OF BANK STATEMEN T OF THE RESPECTIVE ENTITIES SHOWING THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE OBJ ECTION RAISED BY THE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT IS THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE UNSIGNED WITH RESPECT TO THE TWO ENTITIES NAME LY K.K. KABRA MAIL AND VIZ-WISE. WITH REGARD TO THIS THE AS SESSEE CLARIFIED THAT NONE OF THE INVESTMENTS IN THESE ENT ITIES DURING THE YEAR WERE MADE, THE AMOUNTS WERE ARISING OUT OF EARLIER ITA NO.3736/DEL/2017 10 YEAR. THE ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN STATUTORILY AUDITED AN D TAX AUDIT WAS ALSO CARRIED ON. THE OTHER CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT IS WITH REGA RD TO THE FACT THAT UNDER THE LIST OF ALLOTTEES FILED BY RESPECTIV E ENTITIES THERE IS A MENTION OF ALLOTMENTS AGAINST CASH. HOWEVER FROM THE APPRAISAL OF BANK STATEMENT FILED BEFORE ME, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE INVESTMENT HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH PROPER B ANKING CHANNELS. THE LD AR EXPLAINED AND CORRELATED EACH A ND EVERY ENTRY BEFORE ME. IN VIEW OF ALL THESE DOCUMENTARY I NVESTMENT I OBSERVE THAT FROM THE COPY OF FORM NO.2, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT NO INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE ENTITIES. FURTHER FROM THE BANK STATEMENT, IT IS QU ITE CLEAR THAT THE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH CHEQUES. IN THE LIST OF ALLOTTEES APPENDED WITH FORM NO.2, EVERY ENTITY, NA ME OF THE ASSESSEE IS APPEARING. IN VIEW OF THESE EVIDENCES, I DO NOT FIND THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT T HESE INVESTMENTS ARE OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES TO BE CO RRECT. I HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE A DDITION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DECIDED IN HIS FAVOUR. 10. FIRST OF ALL, OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 1,3 1,27,449/-, AMOUNT OF RS.48,27,449/- PERTAINS TO THE EARLIER YE AR WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE AND ACCORDINGLY THE LD. CIT(A) HA S RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAID AMOUNT FROM THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. WITH REGARD TO THE BALANCE AMOUN T, WE FIND THAT THERE IS A CLEAR CUT FINDING BASED ON MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THR OUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNELS AND EACH AND EVERY ENTRY HA VE BEEN ITA NO.3736/DEL/2017 11 DULY EXPLAINED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BANK STATEMENT. ONCE THE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THRO UGH CHEQUES DULY DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE SAME CANNOT BE ADDED AS INVESTMENT MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOK S OR FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES U/S.69. THEREFORE, THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS UPHELD AND ACCORDINGLY THE GROUNDS RA ISED BY THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2020 SD/- SD/- [G.S. PANNU] [AMIT SHUKLA] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2020 PKK