ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Saurabh Kumar Sankalan, New Delhi

ITA 3802/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2825 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 26-04-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Capital asset; Additional evidence; Assessment record
• Section: 2(14); 68; 144

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 3802 & 33 35/DEL/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3802/DEL/2 013 ( A.Y 2009-10) ITO WARD-31 (1), ROOM NO. 1407 E-2 BLOCK, CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS SAURABH KUMAR SANKALAN C-116, 1 ST FLOOR ANANAD NIKETAN NEW DELHI ACXPK2692M (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 3335/DEL/2 013 (A.Y 2009-10) SAURABH KUMAR SANKALAN C-116, 1 ST FLOOR ANANAD NIKETAN NEW DELHI ACXPK2692M (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-31 (1), ROOM NO. 1407 E-2 BLOCK, CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT/RESPONDENT BY SH. KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI, SR. DR RESPONDENT/APPELLANT BY NONE ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/03/2013 PASSED BY CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- DATE OF HEARING 06.03.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16.03.2018 2 ITA NO. 3802 & 33 35/DEL/2013 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING THE FRESH EVIDENCE WHEN NONE OF THE CONDITIONS AS LAID OUT IN THE RULE 46A ARE FULFILLED IN THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE 2 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS 46,46,900/ ON ACCOUNT TO LTCG ON SALE OF LAND WHEN DESPITE NUMERO US OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. 3 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE C1T(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING THE FRESH DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE AND DELETING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.30.19,371 /OU T OF RS 38.59.371/ AS MADE BY AO U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXP LAINED CASH CREDITS WHEN ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GE NUINENESS OF THE CASH CREDITS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS 4 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E , THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 16,59, 000/BEING THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS WHEN ASSESSEE DURING ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF IN VESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT NAINITAL 5 THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD. ALTER OR AMEND ANY/ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HE ARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR SOLD HIS AGRICULTUR AL LAND, AND NO CAPITAL GAINS ACCRUE ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DETERMINED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 46.46,900/- IN RESPECT OF AGRIC ULTURAL LAND. ALL CREDITS APPEARING IN THE BANK STATEMENT AND RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WAS ADDED TO INCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WITHOU T GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE; AND IN FACT CERTAIN DO CUMENTS COULD NOT BE FURNISHED AS THE ACCOUNTS AND FINANCES OF THE ASSES SEE ARE BEING MAINTAINED BY HIS FATHER, AND DUE TO HIS ILL-HEALTH DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE RETRIEVED AND SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. 3 ITA NO. 3802 & 33 35/DEL/2013 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUS TIFIED IN ADMITTING THE FRESH EVIDENCE WHEN NONE OF THE CONDITIONS AS LAID IN THE RULE 46A ARE FULFILLED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JU STIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.46,46,900/- ON ACCOUNT OF LTCJ ON SALE OF LAND WHEN DESPITE NUMEROUS OPPORTUNITIES THE ASSESSEE FAIL TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. THE CIT(A) WAS NOT RIGHT IN ADMITTING THE FRESH DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE AND DELETING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.30,19,371/- OUT OF RS. 38,59,371/- AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLA INED CASH CREDIT WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAIL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF TH E CASH CREDIT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT(A) WAS NOT RIGHT I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,59,000/-. BEING THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT I N THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FAILS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SO URCE OF INCOME IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT NAINITAL. 6. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD. AS RELATES TO GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL, TH E CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE COPY OF TWO SALE DEEDS DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AND THUS THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN GIVING FINDI NG THAT THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO THE ISSUES AND CALLED FOR RE MAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REMAND REPORT DATED 11/3/2013 STATED THAT DUE TO THE ASSESSES ATTITUDE OF NON CO -OPERATIVE NATURE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ORDER U/S 144. BUT THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS NOT COMMENTED ON THE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE CALLED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A). REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THE DOCUMENTS 4 ITA NO. 3802 & 33 35/DEL/2013 WHICH ARE PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS RELIED DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN FACT IN REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADMITTED THAT THE SALE DEED WAS FILED REGARDING THE LAND. BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS WERE ALSO FILED WHICH WAS NOT DENIED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT. THE CIT(A) AFTER GIVING CAREFUL CONSIDERAT ION TO THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE HIM ASKED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE HIS REMAND REPORT ON THE SAID DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO GIVE TH E PROPER FINDING IN RESPECT OF THOSE EVIDENCES. THUS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. AS RELATES TO GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPE AL, THE CIT(A) DEALT WITH THE EVIDENCES IN DETAIL. THE CIT(A) HELD IN PARA 1 2.1 AS UNDER:- 12.1 DESPITE OF HAVING ALL THE INFORMATION PERTAIN ING TO THE SALE OF LAND ON THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE DID NOT BOT HER TO MAKE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES AND TO GIVE A CLEAR FINDING A S TO WHY HE IS DISALLOWING THE CAPITAL GAINS. WITHOUT APPRECIATING AND ANALYZI NG EVIDENCE THAT WAS AVAILABLE WITH HIM AND MAKING AN ADDITION ON THE GR OUND THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS UNJUSTI FIED AND UNWARRANTED. INSTEAD OF ISSUING THE SAME LETTER REPEATEDLY ON DI FFERENT DATES I.E. ON 04.10.2011, 17.10.2011 AND 28.11.2011, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER SHOULD HAVE UTILIZED THIS TIME IN INITIATING AND FURTHERING THE ENQUIRIES TO PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE SAID LAND GENERATED CAPITAL G AINS INSTEAD OF PRESUMING THE APPELLANT TO BE WRONG WITHOUT BRINGING ANY ADVE RSE MATERIAL ON RECORD CONTRARY TO THAT OF THE APPELLANT. ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, SINCE T HE LAND WHICH WAS SOLD BY THE APPELLANT FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF AGRICULT URAL LAND AND DOES NOT COME UNDER THE AMBIT OF CAPITAL ASSET AS PER SECTIO N 2(14) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE SALE OF SUCH LAND CANNOT BE CHARGED TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS.46,46,900/- MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND UND ER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS IS HEREBY DELETED. 5 ITA NO. 3802 & 33 35/DEL/2013 SINCE THE CIT(A) HAS ALREADY GIVEN A DETAILED FINDI NG AFTER VERIFYING ALL THE DOCUMENTS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING PROPER FINDING AND THE OBSERVATIONS HAS SIMP LY MADE THE ADDITIONS WHICH WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE CIT(A). THUS, GROU ND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. AS RELATES TO GROUND NO. 3 OF THE REVENUES APPE AL, THE CIT(A) DEALT WITH THE EVIDENCES IN DETAIL. THE CIT(A) HELD IN PARA 1 5 AS UNDER:- 15. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FIL ED BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO THE DETAILS FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTEN TIONS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ASSESSMENT RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF DEUTS CHE BANK OF THE APPELLANT IT IS SEEN THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,34,940/- WAS FOUN D DEPOSITED ON 13.10.2008. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSING O FFICER FURNISHED A COPY OF THE BUSINESS LOAN PROCURED FROM HDFC BANK. IN SUPPO RT OF THE BUSINESS LOAN, THE APPELLANT FURNISHED A LOAN DISBURSEMENT LETTER WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT AN INSTALLMENT OF RS.27,495/- WOULD BE THE MONTHLY REPAYMENT FROM 07.12.2008. ON 16.12.2008, THERE IS A DEPOSIT OF RS . 6,83,401/- WHICH PERTAINS TO LOAN TAKEN FROM KOTAK MAHINDRA FAMILY. THEREFORE, OUT OF THE DEPOSIT OF RS.38,59,371/- AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,34,940/ - AND RS.6,83,401/- STANDS EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, ON PERU SAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT, I FIND THERE ARE SOME CASH DEPOSITS ON VARIOUS DATE S GIVEN AS UNDER: 07.07.2008 RS. 1,50,000/- 15.07.2008 RS.3,00,000/- 21.07.2008 RS.3,00,000/- 22.08.2008 RS.50,000/- 09.02.2008 RS.40,000/- 6 ITA NO. 3802 & 33 35/DEL/2013 THE APPELLANT NEITHER IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS N OR IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOR IN REJOINDER FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION PERTAINING TO THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS THAT WERE FOUND CREDITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE WAS CORRE CT IN TREATING THE CASH CREDITS AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. HOWEVER, OUT OF RS.3 8,59,371/- AN AMOUNT OF RS.8,40,000/- REMAINS UNEXPLAINED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE SUBSTANTIATING SUCH DEPOSIT. THEREFORE THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS RESTRICTED TO ONLY RS.8.40,000/- AND HENCE IT IS DI RECTED THAT A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER MAY BE PASSED RESTRICTING THE AMOUNT TO RS.8, 40,000/- ONLY. THE CIT(A) HAS TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE CASH DEPOSITS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS W ELL AS DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). THUS, GROUND NO. 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMI SSED. 10. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 4 OF THE REVENUES APP EAL, THE CIT(A) DEALT WITH THE EVIDENCES IN DETAIL. THE CIT(A) HELD IN PARA 2 2 AS UNDER:- 22. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE AP PELLANT, DETAILS FILED BY THE APPELLANT, PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R AND ALSO THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF A CCOUNT OF CUSTOMER ID 000041552 I.E. THE ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS SEEN THAT ON 25.08.2008 AN AMOUNT OF RS. 16,50,000/- WAS DEBITED IN THE NAME O F RAVI TANEJA VIDE CHEQUE NO. 274115. THESE DETAILS WERE MENTIONED ON THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT ALSO. HOWEVER IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT PRIOR TO THE MAK ING OF THIS PAYMENT THERE WERE CERTAIN CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE AP PELLANT ON 07.07.2008, 15.07.2008, 21.07.2008, 22.08.2008 AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,00,000/-. SINCE THIS CASH DEPOSIT WAS ALREADY ADDED U/S 68 TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED PARAGRAPH, THE SAME CANNOT BE TAKEN AS UNEXPLAINED FOR THE SECOND TIME AND BEING IT UNDER THE TAX NET, AS IT A MOUNTS TO DOUBLE TAXATION. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THESE TRANSACTIONS, THE APPE LLANT HAD A BALANCE OF 7 ITA NO. 3802 & 33 35/DEL/2013 RS.17,15,632/- PRIOR TO THE PAYMENT MADE FOR THE PU RCHASE OF LAND. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR INVESTMENT, NO A DVERSE INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND WAS EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT AS LOAN PROCUREMENT FROM HDFC BANK AND KOTAK MAHINDRA IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2008 AND DECEMBER 2008. WHEREAS THE LAND WAS PURCHASED AND REGISTERED ON 14.08.2008. TH E PURPOSE OF PROCURING THE LOAN WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT NOR GAV E ANY EVIDENCE OF ITS INVESTMENT. SINCE THE LAND WAS PURCHASED MUCH BEFOR E THE LOAN WAS TAKEN, THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN LAND WAS OUT OF THE LOAN AMOUNT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. HOWE VER FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, I FIND THAT THE OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.0 4.2008, WAS FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TO BE AT RS.8,12,280/- AND PRIOR TO 25 .08.2008, A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.8,00,000/- WAS REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMEN T AND WAS ALREADY CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT 1961 AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IN THE ABOVE PARAGRA PH. THEREFORE, THE OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2008 WAS RS.8,12,280/- AND THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF RS.8,00,000/- I.E. TOTALING TO RS. 16,12, 280/- APPROXIMATELY EXPLAINS THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN PURCHASE OF LAND. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS.16,59,000/- IS HEREBY DELETED. THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) IS IN DETAIL AND TH ERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A). HENCE GROUND NO. 4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. IN RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE GROUNDS O F APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXVI, NEW DELH I HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 144 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT BY THE RESPONDENT IGNORING THE DOCUMENTS AND OTHER INF ORMATION ON RECORD. 8 ITA NO. 3802 & 33 35/DEL/2013 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXVI, NEW DELH I HAS ERRED IN LAW IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS. 8,40,000/- BEING AMOUN T DEPOSITED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF CASH IN HAND. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXVI, NEW DELH I HAS ERRED IN LAW UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS. 5,73,113/- BEING CREDI T IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE DISALLOWING THE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,85,680/- INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO EARN THE SAID INCOME. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER AND / OR DE LETE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT LATER STAGE, IF NECESSARY. 13. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRESENT, WE ARE TAKI NG THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS PLACED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE ORDER IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL HAS GIVEN A DETAIL FINDING AS TO EX-PARTE O RDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT DESPITE G IVING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH PROPER RECORDS BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDIN GS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A). GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 14. AS RELATES TO GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEES AP PEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT OUT OF RS.38,59,379/- AN AMOUNT OF RS.8,40,000/- REMAINS UNEXPLAINED FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DOCUMENT BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENC E, RESTRICTED THE AMOUNT TO RS.8,40,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. THERE IS NO N EED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 15. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEA L, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE SALE OF AGRI CULTURAL PRODUCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE CIT(A). TH E CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS INDEPENDENT AND H AS NO BEARING ON THE ASSESSMENT OR THE EARLIER OR SUBSEQUENT YEARS. IN- FACT, THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE DIFFERS FROM ONE YEAR TO ANOTHER YEAR. THE REFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO 9 ITA NO. 3802 & 33 35/DEL/2013 INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 16. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16TH MARCH, 2018 . SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 16/03/2018 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 10 ITA NO. 3802 & 3 335/DEL/2013 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 07/03/2018 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 08/03/2018 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .2018 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 16.03.2018 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 6 .03.2018 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 11 ITA NO. 3802 & 3 335/DEL/2013