Shri Manoj Mittal, Panchkula V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 394/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9798 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Onus to prove; Documents seized

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 394/CHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SHRI MANOJ MITTAL, VS. THE A.C.I.T, # 536, SECTOR 16, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, PANCHKULA. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAZPM1127B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 19.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.07.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), GURGAON DATED 8.3.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2009- 10, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS .6,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ON THE BA SIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT A- 14 (PAGE 3) FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THIRD PERSON I.E. M/S SANAA INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LIMITED WHICH IS ARBIT RARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS .14,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ON THE BA SIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT A- 14 (PAGES 22-23) FOUND FROM THE PREMISE S OF THIRD PERSON I.E. M/S SANAA INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LIMITED WHICH IS ARBIT RARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS .74,50,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ON THE BA SIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT A-15 (PAGES 19-22,25,29-30 AND 35-37 ) FOU ND FROM THE PREMISES OF THIRD PERSON I.E. M/S SANAA INFRASTRUCT URE (P) LIMITED WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 4. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS .2,24,128/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ON THE BA SIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT A-20 (PAGE 38) FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THIRD PERSON I.E. M/S SANAA INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LIMITED WHICH IS ARBIT RARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 5. THAT ALL THE AFOREMENTIONED ADDITIONS ARE BASED ON DUMB DOCUMENTS AND ONLY UNDER THE REALM OF SUSPICION, SURMISES AND CON JECTURES WHICH MERIT DELETION AT THE OUTSET. 6. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE CHARGING OF THE INTEREST UNDER SECTIO NS 234-A, 234-B & 234C OF THE ACT WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE IN THE INST ANT CASE. 7. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF T HE CASE AND IS, THUS, UNTENABLE. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BO TH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS CASE, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132(1) W AS 3 CONDUCTED ON RESIDENTIAL/BUSINESS PREMISES OF MITTA L GROUP OF CASES ON 16.1.2009. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF I NCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,91,500/-. THE ASSES SMENT WAS, HOWEVER, FRAMED AT RS.98,68,320/-. ON GROUND NO.1 , THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SEI ZED DOCUMENT A-14, PAGE-3 FOR ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENT. THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS SEIZED FROM THE OFFICE PREM ISES OF M/S SANAA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, ZIRKPUR I N THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION ON 16.1.2009. THIS DOCU MENT BELONGS TO M/S SHRESTH COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED. THE PROMOTERS OF BOTH THE COMPANIES ARE COMMON. SHRI M ANOJ MITTAL WAS DIRECTOR OF M/S SHRESTH COLONIZERS PRIVA TE LIMITED AT THAT TIME. PAGE-3 OF THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINED TH E DETAILS OF BOOKING AMOUNTS OF FLATS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, WHIC H IS REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT, COPY OF THE SAME HAS BEEN FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH BEARS NAME OF THE ASSESSEE , FLAT NO.1 2 3 1 3 1 4 1 5 AND BOOKING AMOUNT 4,00,000/-, 1,00,000/-, 1,00,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKE D THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE BOOKING AMOUNT OF RS.6, 00,000/- SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER, IN WHICH HE HAS EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS NO REL ATION OR BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP WITH M/S SANAA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, WHATSOEVER. ALL THE RECORDS MAINTAINED BY SOMEBODY IN M/S SANAA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ARE IR RELEVANT TO HIM PERSONALLY. FOR LONG BACK, HE WAS DIRECTOR IN THE COMPANY M/S SHRESTH COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED ALON GWITH THREE OTHER DIRECTORS, NAMELY S/SHRI RAJINDER MITTA L, PRAMOD 4 SINGLA AND NEERAJ GOEL. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO TRANSA CTION WITH ANY OF THE COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO BUSINESS CONNECTION WITH M/S SANAA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LI MITED OR M/S SHRESTH COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED. HE HAS NO T MADE ANY PAYMENT TO ANY OF THESE COMPANIES. THE DEVELOP MENT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE COMPANY AND NOT BY ANY INDIVI DUAL. THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP OF FL ATS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS NOT BOOKED/PURCHASE D ANY FLAT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY INSTALLMENT. THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED ADDITION SHOULD NOT BE MADE. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID BOOKING AMOUNT OF RS.6,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROU GHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE SAID BOOKING A MOUNT OF RS.6,00,000/- WAS NOT PAID BY HIM. THE ASSESSING O FFICER ACCORDINGLY, MADE ADDITION OF RS.6,00,000/-. 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A SSESSEE FILED A REPLY WHICH IS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 1-6. THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID REPLY ARE REITERATED. FURTHER, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DOCUM ENT RELIED UPON WAS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF ONE M/S SANAA INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LI MITED WITH WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NO RELATION WHATSOEVER. THE DOCUMENT I S NOT IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE ASSESSEE, SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMIS ES OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO BUT NO RELATED DOCUMENT WHATSOEVER WAS FOUND THERE. ASS ESSEE HAS NOT INVESTED IN ANY OF THE ALLEGED FLATS AS MENTIONED IN THE' DOCUM ENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO CHECK WITH THE COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE S FROM WHERE THE SAID DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN SEIZED AS TO THE NATURE OF ENTR IES APPEARING IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. HE HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO FIND OUT W HETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD 5 INVESTED IN ANY FLATS AS MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT JUST BECAUSE THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN WRITTEN BY SOMEONE IN HIS DIARY D OES NOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED IN THE FL ATS AS PER THE ROUGH JOTTINGS IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. IT IS A TRITE LAW THAT ADDITIO NS CANNOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF DUMB DOCUMENTS. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON A RECENT J UDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/ S KHOSLA ICE AND GENERAL MILLS ITA 208 OF 2011 FOR THE SAID PROPOSITION. COPY OF T HE SAME IS ANNEXED HEREWITH. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON HE ARSAY EVIDENCE MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 5. HOWEVER, THE CIT (APPEALS) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, DISMISSED THIS GROUND O F APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. HIS FINDI NGS IN PARA 5.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 5.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE ADDITION WAS BASED ON THE DOCUMENT FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF M/S SANAA INFRAST RUCTURE (P) LTD. WITH WHOM ASSESSEE HAS NO RELATION AND NO RELATED DOCUME NT WAS FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THAT NO SUCH INVE STMENT HAD BEEN MADE IN THE ALLEGED FLATS AND SO ADDITION MADE JUST BECAUSE THE NAME IS APPEARING IN SOMEONE ELSE'S DIARY WAS NOT SUFFICIENT. IT WAS STR ESSED THAT ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE OF THE BASIS OF DUMB DOCUMENTS. ON THE OTHE R HAND THE A.O. HELD THAT THE SEIZED PAPER CLEARLY MENTIONED THE DETAILS OF INSTALMENT PAID IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS DATES. THE LINK BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S SANAA WAS THAT THE DOCUMENT SEIZED BELONGED TO M/S SHRESTH COLONISERS PVT LTD. IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS A DIRECTOR. THESE TW O COMPANIES HAD COMMON PROMOTERS. THESE AFORESAID FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE . THE PAPERS, COPIES OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE PB 7-16 HAVE BEEN PERUSED. THE NAME MANOJ MITTAL I.E THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED AND INSTALMENTS CLEARLY INDICATED AS PAID IN CASH. THUS BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN THESE DOCUMENTS BE TERMED AS DUMB, AS THE NARRATIONS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNINTELLIGIBLE. THE ONUS WAS T HEREFORE ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE APPARENT WAS NOT REAL AND THAT HE HAD NOT PAID ANY SUCH 6 SUMS OF MONEY IN CAS HAS ALLEGED. RELIANCE PLACED I N THE CASE CIT VS. M/S KHOSLA ICE & GENERAL MILLS IN ITA NO. 208 OF 2011 (P&H) DOES NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE AS THE CASE CITED REFERS TO DOCUMENTS WHIC H COULD NOT BE DECIPHERED PROPERLY AS THE NAMES AND ENTRIES WERE NOT CLEAR. I N THE CASE IN HAND THE POSITION IS NOT SO. IN FACT THE DOCUMENTS ARE INCRI MINATING. IT IS THUS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSED PRIMARY FACTS ON THE B ASIS OF WHICH FACTUAL AND LEGAL INFERENCES COULD BE DRAWN. MERELY DISOW NING THE CONTENTS THE DOCUMENTS IN WHICH HIS NAME UNMISTAKEABLY HAS BEEN WRITTEN WITH CASH AMOUNTS PAID AGAINST VARIOUS INSTALMENTS, WITHOUT A N IOTA OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM, IS NOT JUST NOT ADEQUATE. I T IS THEREFORE CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPENDED UNACCOUNTED SUMS OF MONEY FOR WHICH NO COGENT EXPLANATION HAVE BEEN FILED. IN SUCH A BACKD ROP, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A O. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE COPY OF THE SE IZED PAPER IS ALSO FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS UNDATED A ND UN- SIGNED. THE SEIZED PAPER IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RE COVERED FROM THE PREMISES OF M/S SANAA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVA TE LIMITED, ZIRKPUR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ES TABLISHED ANY BUSINESS RELATION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S SANAA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, ZIRKPUR. IT IS, TH EREFORE, ESTABLISHED FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS RECOVERED FROM THE POWER AND POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 292C OF THE ACT WOULD NOT ARISE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MENTIONED ANY FACT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IF THE INVESTIGATION PARTY HAVE EX AMINED ANY PERSON FROM M/S SANAA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITE D FROM WHOSE POSSESSION THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS RECOVERED TO LINK THE ASSESSEE WITH THE INVESTMENT STATED TO HAVE BEE N MADE 7 THROUGH THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD IF THE ASSESSEE MADE ANY BOOKING AMOUNT W ITH ANY COMPANY. IF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT WANTED TO FASTE N THE LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE THROUGH SEIZED PAPER, IT WAS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE SOME AUTHORIZED PERSON OF M/S SANAA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, ZIRKPUR TO PROVE TH AT THE DOCUMENT IN QUESTION BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SEIZED DOCUMENT DID NOT BEAR SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE INVESTIGATION AGENCY OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS A LSO NOT REFERRED THE SEIZED DOCUMENT TO ANY AUTHORIZED HAND WRITING EXPERT TO PROVE THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS WRITTE N IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE ASSESSEE. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD IF THE ASSESSEE BOOKED ANY FLAT OR PROPERTY IN RESPECT OF WHICH DETAILS NOTED FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. NO E VIDENCE OF ACTUAL INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF CERT IFICATE OF M/S SHRESTH COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED BELONGING TO REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, CHANDIGARH, IN WHICH IT IS STATED THA T S/SHRI RAJINDER MITTAL AND NEERAJ GOEL ARE THE DIRECTORS F ROM 13.10.2005. THUS, THE DENIAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS C ORRECT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DIRECTOR OF M/S SHRESTH COLONI ZERS PRIVATE LIMITED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ON 16.1.2009. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE MADE THE ADDITION AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE BECAUSE IN THEIR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROU GHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE SAID BOOKING A MOUNT OF RS.6,00,000/- WAS NOT PAID BY HIM. SINCE THE DOCUM ENT WAS FOUND FROM THIRD PARTY, THEREFORE, ONUS WOULD BE UP ON THE 8 REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE DETAILS OF BOOKING CONTAI NED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER INSTEAD OF DISCHARGING HIS ONUS TO PROVE TH E ABOVE FACT, HAS PUT THE ASSESSEE TO NEGATIVE ONUS TO PROV E THAT HE HAS NOT MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN ANY FLAT. THUS, THE RE WAS NO BASIS FOR THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO MAKE ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE OR TO CONSIDER THE SEIZED DOCUMENT TO BE INCRIMINATING IN NATURE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE M AY ALSO NOTE HERE THAT IF SOME PARTY MADE SOME NOTINGS IN T HEIR DIARY, HOW THE SAME WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THE THIRD PARTY UNDER LAW, HAS NOT BEEN CLARIFIED BY THE REVENUE AU THORITIES. THERE SHOULD BE SOME BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION FOR SUCH CONSIDERATION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BUT NO SUCH BASI S HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE LEARNED D.R. HAS REL IED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF R.P. VASHISHT VS. DCIT, 301 ITR 37 (P& H), IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT A CRIMINAL CHARGE IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, WHILE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME- TAX IS ON THE BASIS OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITI ES ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD . IN THIS CASE, DIARY WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THEREFORE, IT WAS ARGUED THAT IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT SHRI SURESH SHARMA WOULD HAVE RECO RDED THE PAYMENTS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NO RHY ME OR REASON. HOWEVER, IN FACTS OF THE ABOVE CASE, THIS JUDGMENT WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE N O MATERIAL WAS FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING ANY INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY. THE INVESTIGATION AGENCY O R 9 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON R ECORD IF IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN ANY PROPE RTY. 7. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.6,0 0,000/-. THE GROUND NO.1 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORD INGLY, ALLOWED. 8. IN GROUND NOS. 2 TO 4 THE FACTS ARE SAME AS HAV E BEEN NOTED IN GROUND NO.1 ABOVE, IN WHICH ALSO, SIM ILAR SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND FROM M/S SANAA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE SAME REASONI NG HAS MADE ADDITIONS, ON WHICH GROUND NOS.2, 3 AND 4 ABOV E, HAVE BEEN RAISED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE TH E CIT (APPEALS) THAT SUBMISSIONS ON THESE GROUNDS WOULD B E SAME AS HAVE BEEN MADE ON ADDITION OF RS.6,00,000/-. TH E CIT (APPEALS) FOLLOWING THE REASONING FOR DECISION OF A DDITION OF RS.6,00,000/- ABOVE, CONFIRMED THIS ADDITION AND DI SMISSED THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITIONS. T HE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT THESE ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ON GRO UND NO.1 ABOVE. FOLLOWING THE REASONING ON GROUND NO.1 ABOV E, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELET E THE ADDITIONS OF RS.14,00,000/-, RS.74,50,000/- AND 10 RS.2,24,128/-. THE GROUND NOS.2, 3 AND 4 OF THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED. THE GROUND NO.5 IS COMMON FOR ABOVE GROUNDS. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 20 TH JULY, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH S