DCIT, New Delhi V. Smt. Shalini Goyal, Delhi

ITA 398/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3103 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 11-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Source of fund; Additional evidence; Valuation report; Assessment record
• Section: 142(1); 153A; 68; 132

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 398 & 399/DEL/2014 A.Y RS . : 200 9 - 10 & 2010 - 11 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, DELHI ROOM NO. 361, 3 RD FLOOR, ARA CENTRE, E-2 JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI VS. SMT. SHALINI GOYAL, 44, ENGINEERS ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, DELHI 110 034 (PAN:AAEPG8998B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND I.T.A. NOS.465 & 466/DEL/2014 A.YRS. : 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 SMT. SHALINI GOYAL, 44, ENGINEERS ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, DELHI 110 034 (PAN:AAEPG8998B) VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, DELHI ROOM NO. 361, 3 RD FLOOR, ARA CENTRE, E-2 JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR) ASSESSEE BY : NONE ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE A ND THE ASSESSEE EMANATING FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XXXI, NEW DELHI RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11. SINCE THE ISSU ES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL, HENCE, THESE APPE ALS WERE HEARD 2 TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED BY THIS COMMON ORDE R FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN REVENUES ITA NO. 398/DEL /2014 (AY 2009- 10) READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AN D FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 58,79,021/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,20,121/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND ANY / A LL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN REVENUES ITA NO. 399/DEL/ 2014 (AY 2010- 11) READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AN D FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF 3 RS. 1,28,89,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND ANY / A LL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ASSESSEES ITA NO. 465/DEL /2014 (AY 2009- 10) READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRM ING THE ADDITION OF RS. 18,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAI NED CREDIT IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SUB MITTED ALL THE DOCUMENTS RELATED SUCH AS PAN CARD, BANK STATEMENT ETC. TO THE ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CREDIT D URING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A) PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES SHOULD BE REVERSED AND ADDITION CONFIRMED BY HIM SHOULD BE DELETED. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMI NG THE ADHOC ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY, WITHOUT ANY B ASIS, ARBITRARILY AND IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLAN T HAS SUBMITTED DURING THE PROCEEDINGS THAT THERE WAS NO FRESH INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY AND DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY DUE TO INCREASE IN PRICE ONLY. THUS, O RDER OF 4 THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES SHOULD BE REVERSED AND ADHOC ADDITION CONFIRMED BY HIM SHOULD BE DELETED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LAVE TO ADD, SUBSTITUTE , MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 5. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ASSESSEES ITA NO. 466/DEL /2014 (AY 2010- 11) READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMI NG THE ADDITION OF RS. 43,34,185/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY, WITHOUT ANY BASIS, ARBITR ARILY AND IGNORING THE FACT THAT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS T HE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED COMPLETE DETAILS OF OWNERS OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE LOCKER AT THE TIME OF SE ARCH AND THEIR WEALTH TAX RETURNS. THUS, ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A) PASSED MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES SHOULD BE REVERSED AND ADDITION CONFIRMED BY HIM SHOULD BE DELETED. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LAVE TO ADD, SUBSTITUT E, MODIFY, DELETE OR AMEND ALL OR ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 5 6. FIRST WE DEAL WITH THE REVENUE APPEALS AS UNDER: - REVENUES APPEAL - ITA NO. 398/DEL/2014 (AY 2009-10 ) 7. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CENTRALIZED CONSEQUENT UPON AN ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 7.1.2010 IN GEE ISPAT GROUP OF CAS ES. A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE I.T. ACT WAS ISSUED ON 08.11.2 010. THE RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 4,02,650/- WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 21.10.2009. THEREAFTER, A QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED UND ER SECTION 142(1) ON 18.7.2011 ALONGWITH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,. 1961. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICES UND ER SECTION 142(1) & 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND FURNISHED IN FORMATION CALLED FOR FROM TIME TO TIME ALONGWITH NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. AF TER EXAMINING THE ALL THE DOCUMENTS THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3)/153A MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES. I) ADDITION OF RS. 76,79,021/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPL AINED CASH CREDITS U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. II) ADDITION OF RS. 1,68,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. III) ADDITION OF RS. 3,70,121/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. 6 8. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27. 12.2011, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.11.2013 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESEEE. 9. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 10. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REI TERATED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL AND REQUE STED THAT APPEALS OF THE REVENUE MAY BE ALLOWED BY CANCELLING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). TO SUPPORT HIS CASE, HE FILED THE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, THE CONTENTS OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION ARE REPRODUCED H EREUNDER:- SUB: WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE ABOVE CASE- REG. IN THE ABOVE CASE, IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED: 1. TOBY CONSULTANTS (P.) LTD. VS CN [2010] 324 ITR 338 (DELHI) WHERE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT WH ERE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD SHOWN IN BOOKS UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 2.68 CRORES AND RS. 2.45 CRORES FROM ITS TWO DIRECT ORS AND IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT MONEY BELONGED TO ITS OWN ENTITY AND WAS ROUTED THROUGH DIRECTORS AND TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT DI RECTORS WHO ADVANCED LOAN WERE ADMITTEDLY NOT AT ALL MEN OF MEANS FOR ADVANCING SUCH HUGE AMOUNT OF LOAN AMOUNTING TO ABOUT RS. 5 CRORES AND SECONDLY THAT ASSESSEE EVEN FOR TA KING SUCH 7 HUGE AMOUNT OF LOAN DID NOT WANT TO PAY ANY INTERES T FOR WHICH CREDITORS ALSO AGREED, TRIBUNAL HAD RIGHTLY, ARRIVED AT A FINDING OF FACT, ON ANALYSIS OF ALL RELEVANT MATERI AL ON RECORD, THAT GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION HAD NOT BEEN ESTABL ISHED AND ASSESSEE-HAD FAILED TO INDEPENDENTLY PROVE SAME APP LICATION MONEY, AMOUNT SO RECEIVED WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED UN DER SECTION 68. 2. SANRAJ ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. VS CIT (ITA 79/2016 ) (DELHI) WHERE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT AD DITION MADE U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS WAS JUSTI FIED, WHERE INITIAL ONUS OF PROVING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS WAS NOT DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. R. MALLIKA VS CIT [20171 79 TAXMANN.COM 117 (SC) WHERE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED SLP AGAINST M ADRAS HIGH COURT'S RULING THAT WHERE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DIS CHARGED BURDEN AS REGARDS SOURCE FROM WHICH INVESTMENT HAD BEEN MADE, INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY WAS AN UNEXPLAINED INV ESTMENT AND SAME WAS RIGHTLY ADDED TO INCOME OF ASSESSEE. CIT VS R. MALLIKA [20131 36 TAXMANN.COM 231 (MADRAS)/[2013] 219 TAXMAN 244 (MADRAS) WHERE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE ASS ESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PROPERTY FOR RS. 22 LAKHS AND SHE H AD NOT DISCHARGED BURDEN AS REGARDS SOURCE FROM WHICH INVE STMENT 8 HAD BEEN MADE, INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY WAS AN UNEXPL AINED INVESTMENT AND SAME WAS RIGHTLY ADDED TO INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 4. NARESH CHANDRA JAIN VS CIT (ITA NO.335 OF 2009) (ALLAHABAD) WHERE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HELD THAT TRIBUN AL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT AMOUNT OF LOAN RECEIVED B Y ASSESSEE WAS UNEXPLAINED INCOME U/S 68 IN AS MUCH AS IDENTIT Y, GENUINENESS, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT PROVED. 5. CIT VS NIPUN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (P.) LTD (30 TAXMANN.COM 292, 214 TAXMAN 429, 350 ITR 407, 256 C TR 34) WHERE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO PROVE IDENTITY AND CAPACITY OF SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES TO PAY SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, AMOUNT SO RECEIVED WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER SECTION 68. 6. CIT VS N R PORTFOLIO PVT LTD (29 TAXMANN.COM 291 ) WHERE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT IF AO DOUB TS THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY ASSESSEE, THE ONUS SHIFTS ON ASSESSEE TO FURTHER SUBSTANTIATE THE FACTS OR PRODUCE THE SH ARE APPLICANT IN PROCEEDING. 9 11. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTERED AD POST, IN SPITE OF THE SAME, ASSESSEE, NOR HER AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE, NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUE INV OLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE W OULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE FORE, WE ARE DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEALS EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE, AFTER HEA RING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORD S AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY LD. DR. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. DR, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAME ARE ON THE DISTINGUISHED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HENCE, ARE NOT AP PLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT LD. FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE BY CONS IDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AN D ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE FROM PAGE NO. 7 TO 10 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED A S UNDER:- 4.10.1 THE AO HAS PICKED UP 10 CREDIT ENTRIES FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT AND MENTIONS IN THE ORDER THAT NO DETA ILS ABOUT THESE ENTRIES HAVE BEEN FILED TO EXPLAIN THES E TRANSACTIONS. HE RECALLS THAT VIDE QUESTIONNAIRE DA TED 18.07.2011 THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN TH E 10 CREDIT TRANSACTIONS APPEARING IN THE BANK A/C AND S INCE NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILED, HE PROCEEDED TO HOLD TH E SAME AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF HE ASSESSEE AND ADDED IT TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW: FROM THE DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, I T IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE RAISED UNSECURED LOAN FROM SOME PERSON/ENTITIES DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS Y EARS OUT OF WHICH CERTAIN ACCOUNTS WERE SQUARED UP. NET AMOUNT OF FOUND RECEIVED IS DETAILED AS UNDER: 14-05-2008 2000000/- 31-05-2005 100000/- 06-06-2008 300000/- 10-06-2008 1834021/- 12-06-2008 220000/- 05-09-2008 1500000/- 10-10-2008 200000/- 10-11-2008 1100000/- 29-01-20013 100000/- 25-02-2009 325000/- 11 TOTAL 7679021/- NO DETAILS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SE CREDIT TRANSACTIONS, IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, VIDE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 18-07-2011, T HE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE CREDITS TRANSACTI ONS APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS, NO DETAILS HAVE BEE N FILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE TRANSACTIONS OF CREDITS APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS WAY HAS FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE AMOUNT OF RS.7679021/-CRE DITED TO HER BANK ACCOUNT IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE FUND RAISED HAVE BEEN PUT TO USE BY THE ASSESSEE IN MAKING INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASES OF PROPERTY. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NO ADDRESS OF ANY PERSON/ENTITY HAS BEEN PROVIDED SO AS TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE ENTITIES/PERSONS. IDENTITY OF TH ESE PERSON IS NOT PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FURNISHING ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. NO DOCUMENTS ARE PRODUCED TO SUBSTANTIATE AND TRANSACTIONS MADE WITH THIS ENTIT IES. THEREFORE AMOUNT OF RS. 7679021/- CREDITED TO THE B ANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, IS CONSIDERED BEING UNEXPLAINED FUNDS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE INTRODU CED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. NO ACCOUNT DETAILS OF THIS ENT ITY 12 ARE FILED IN THIS OFFICE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS NOR HAS ANY PERSON BEEN PRODUCED TO JUSTIFY THE TRANSACTIONS AND TO EXPLAIN THE GENUIN ENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND SOURCE OF FUNDS. CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE ENTITIES/ PERSON HAS ALS O NOT BEEN PROVED BY FURNISHING DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF FINANCIAL STATUS OF THESE PERSON/ ENTITIES. THEREF ORE, SOURCE OF FUNDS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS HELD AS UNEXPLAINED AND UNSUBSTANTIATED BEING UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.10.2 THE AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT MOST OF THE ENTRIE S LISTED BY THE AO IN HIS ORDER ARE IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS WITH HER HUSBAND WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS IN HI S BANK ACCOUNTS. A CHART HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE AR AT PAGE 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK GIVING THE NAME OF THE PERSON WIT H WHOM TRANSACTION HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO. FROM THE SAME IT IS SEEN THAT 7 OUT OF 10 TRANSACTIONS ARE I N RESPECT OF FUNDS TRANSFERRED FROM BANK ACCOUNT OF H ER HUSBAND MR. SAWAR MAL GOYAL, 2 ENTRIES RELATE TO AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM MR. RAJESH GAUTAM AND ONE ENTRY RELATES TO TRANSACTION WITH MS. SONIA BASSI. THE HUSBAND OF THE APPELLANT (MR. SAWAR MAL GOYAL) IS A LSO 13 ASSESSED TO TAX BY THE SAME AO. THE CANARA BANK ACCOUNT COPY OF MR. SAWAR MAL GOYAL FILED AT PAGE 1 1 TO 17 OF PAPER BOOK DULY CONTAINS THE ENTRIES FOR HAVI NG TRANSFERRED FUNDS TO THE ASSESSEE'S BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE SAME BRANCH (WAZIRPUR) OF CANRA BANK. AT PAGE 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE APPELLANT HA S ALSO FILED THE CONFIRMATION FROM HER HUSBAND WHICH CONTAINS ALL THE 7 ENTRIES MENTIONED BY THE, AO. HE NCE, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN HOLDING THESE AMOUNTS AS UNEXPLAINED., THE QUESTIONNAIRE OF 18.07.2012 IS A GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE TOUCHING UPON SEVERAL POINTS. AS SUCH THERE IS NO QUERY ASKING THE APPELLANT TO EXPL AIN AND SUBSTANTIATE EACH AND EVERY ENTRY IN THE BANK STATEMENT. AS REGARDS AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM MR. RAJE SH GAUTAM, THE CONFIRMATION IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE AR HAS 'ALSO PLACED THE PAN CARD CO PY OF MS. SONIA BASSI ALONG WITH HER BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT AT PAGES 27 & 28. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO DESCRIPTION OF TRANSACTION OR CONFIRMATIONS FROM MS . SONIA BASSI. IN VIEW OF THIS IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED HER ONUS IN RESPECT OF AMO UNTS RECEIVED FROM HER HUSBAND AND MR. RAJESH GAUTAM. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF MS. SONIA BASSI NO CONFIRMAT ION HAS BEEN FILED. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT TH E 14 APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED HER PRELIMINARY ONUS ON TH IS ENTRY. CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTORS, I CONFIRM THE A DDITION OF RS.18 LACS SUPPOSED TO BE RELATING TO MS. SONIA BASSI AS UNEXPLAINED SINCE NO CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FILED EITHER AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE OR AT THE APPEAL STA GE. THE BALANCE ADDITION MADE UNDER THIS HEAD IS HEREBY DELETED. ..4.12 UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY 4.12.1 THE AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 3,70,121/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. HE HAS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A RISE IN THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY BY RS. 3.70 LACS IN THE RETURN OF WEALTH FILED FOR THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS COMPARED TO THE RETURN FILED FOR A.Y. 2008-09. THE AO HAS NOTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ,ANY DETAILS SHOWING THE SOURCE OF FUNDS USED IN ACQUIRING THE EXTRA JEWELLE RY. THEREFORE, HE HAS BROUGHT TO TAX RS. 3,17,121/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. T HE AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TOTAL JEWELLERY DECLARED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN OF A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10 WAS DUE TO INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY AND AS SUCH THERE WAS NO PURCHASE OF 15 JEWELLERY DURING THE YEAR. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED T HAT THERE IS NO CASE OF HOLDING THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE JEWELLERY. 4.12.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR. NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS TO SHOW THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE OF AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY SHOWN IN THE WEALT H TAX RETURN OF A.Y. 2008-09 AND 2009-10 WAS ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION OF THE JEWEL LERY. NO VALUATION REPORT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED NOR ANY LIST HAS BEEN. SUBMITTED SHOWING ITEM WISE INCREASE IN THE V ALUE OFJEWELLERY. IN VIEW OF THIS I DO NOT FIND ANY DEME RITS IN THE ACTION OF THE AO. THE ADDITION THEREFORE IS DESERVES TO BE RETAINED . IT IS HOWEVER, NOTED THAT EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IT CANNOT BE COMPLETELY DENIE D THAT-THERE COULD BE INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF THE JEWELLERY HELD BY THE APPELLANT DUE TO APPRECIATION IN THE PRICE OF GOLD. THE STANDARD GOLD RATE WAS RS. 12,280/- FOR 10 GMS OF 24 CARAT GOLD AS ON 31.03.20 08 WHICH, HAD INCREASED TO RS. 15,105/- FOR 10 GMS OF2 4 CARAT GOLD. THUS THERE IS INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF GOLD DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 BY ABOUT RS. 2,82 5/- 16 WHICH COMES TO 23% ON THE PRICE PREVAILING AS ON 01.04.2008. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN INCREA SE IN THE TOTAL VALUE OF JEWELLERY BY ALMOST 42% (RS.3,70,121 / RS. 89,40,67 X 100) WHICH DEFINITELY IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS FAIL ED TO SUBMIT ANY DOCUMENTS IN THIS REGARD. THE AO ALSO DO ES NOT SEEMS TO HAVE TAKEN UP ASSESSMENT OF WEALTH TAX OF THE APPELLANT. IN THIS BACKGROUND, I AM OF THE V IEW THAT ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IF THE ADDITION I S RESTRICTED TO RS. 1,50,000/- AND THE BALANCE IS DEL ETED. AO IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION ON THIS ISS UE TO RS. 1,50,000/- ONLY. 13. ON GOING THROUGH THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE L D. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT MOST OF THE ENTRIES LISTED BY THE AO IN HIS AS SESSMENT ORDER ARE IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS WITH ASSESSEES HUSBAND WHI CH HAVE BEEN DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS IN HI S BANK ACCOUNTS. WE NOTE THAT 7 OUT OF 10 TRANSACTIONS ARE IN RESPECT O F FUNDS TRANSFERRED FROM BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND MR. SAWAR MAL GO YAL, 2 ENTRIES RELATE TO AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM MR. RAJESH GAUTAM AND ONE ENTRY RELATES TO TRANSACTION WITH MS. SONIA BASSI. THE HUSBAND OF TH E ASSESSEE (MR. SAWAR MAL GOYAL) IS ALSO ASSESSED TO TAX BY THE SAME AO. THE CANARA BANK ACCOUNT OF MR. SAWAR MAL GOYAL CONTAINS THE ENTRIES FOR HAVING TRANSFERRED FUNDS TO THE ASSESSEE'S BANK ACCOUNT MA INTAINED IN THE SAME BRANCH (WAZIRPUR) OF CANRA BANK. THE CONFIRMATION F ROM ASSESSEES 17 HUSBAND WHICH CONTAINS ALL THE 7 ENTRIES MENTIONED BY THE, AO. AS REGARDS AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM MR. RAJESH GAUTAM, THE CONFIRMATION IS ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DESCRIPTION OF TRANSACTION OR CONFIRMATIONS FROM MS. SONIA BASSI. IN VIEW OF THIS IT WAS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HER ONUS IN RESPECT OF AMOU NTS RECEIVED FROM HER HUSBAND AND MR. RAJESH GAUTAM. HOWEVER, IN RESP ECT OF MS. SONIA BASSI NO CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FILED. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HER PRELIMINARY ONUS ON THI S ENTRY. CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTORS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A)S ACTION IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.18 LACS WAS RELATING TO MS. SONIA BASSI AS UNEXPLAINED SINCE NO CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FILED EI THER AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE OR AT THE APPEAL STAGE. THE BALANCE ADDITION MADE UNDER THIS HEAD WAS RIGHTLY DELETED, WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTER FERENCE ON OUR PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON TH E ADDITION IN DISPUTE AND DISMISS THE GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 13.1 WITH REGARD TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS MA DE AN ADDITION OF RS. 3,70,121/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLE RY. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A RISE IN THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY BY R S. 3.70 LACS IN THE RETURN OF WEALTH FILED FOR THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS COMPARED TO THE RETURN FILED FOR A.Y. 2008-09. THE AO HAS NOTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY DETAILS SHOWING THE SOURCE OF FUNDS U SED IN ACQUIRING THE EXTRA JEWELLERY. THEREFORE, HE HAS BROUGHT TO TAX R S. 3,17,121/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE REP RESENTING 18 UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. WE NOTE THAT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TOT AL JEWELLERY DECLARED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN OF A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10 WAS DUE TO INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY AND AS SUCH THERE WAS NO PUR CHASE OF JEWELLERY DURING THE YEAR. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO CASE OF HOLDING THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN TH E JEWELLERY. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE HAVE BEEN SU BMITTED DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS TO SHOW THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN T HE VALUE OF AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY SHOWN IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN OF A.Y. 20 08-09 AND 2009-10 WAS ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION OF TH E JEWELLERY. ALSO NO VALUATION REPORT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED NOR ANY LIST HA S BEEN SUBMITTED SHOWING ITEM WISE INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF JEWELLER Y. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOTED THAT EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCES IT CANNOT BE COMPLETELY DENIED THAT THERE COULD BE INCREASE IN T HE VALUE OF THE JEWELLERY HELD BY THE ASSESSEE DUE TO APPRECIATION IN THE PRICE OF GOLD. THE STANDARD GOLD RATE WAS RS. 12,280/- FOR 10 GMS OF 24 CARAT GOLD AS ON 31.03.2008 WHICH, HAD INCREASED TO RS. 15,105/- FOR 10 GMS OF24 CARAT GOLD. THUS THERE IS INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF GOLD DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 BY ABOUT RS. 2,825/- WHICH COMES TO 23 % ON THE PRICE PREVAILING AS ON 01.04.2008. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCREASE IN THE TOTAL VALUE OF JEWELLERY BY ALMOST 42% (RS.3 ,70,121 RS. 89,40,67 X 100) WHICH DEFINITELY IS ON THE HIGH ER SIDE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY DOCUMENTS IN THIS REGARD. THE AO ALSO DOES NOT SEEMS TO HAVE TAKEN UP ASSESSMENT OF WEALT H TAX OF THE 19 APPELLANT. IN THIS BACKGROUND, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHT LY HELD THAT THE ADDITION IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 1,50,000/- AND THE BALANCE IS DELETED AND DIRECTLY THE AO TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE TO RS. 1, 50,000/- ONLY, WHICH WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ADDITION IN DISPUT E AND ACCORDINGLY, THE DISMISS THE GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. REVENUES APPEAL - ITA NO. 399/DEL/2014 (AY 2010-11 ) 14. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE WAS CENTRALIZED CONSEQUENT UPON AN ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 7.1.2010 IN GEE ISPAT GROUP OF CAS ES. A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 7.7.2011. THE RETURN D ECLARING INCOME OF RS. 3,03,480/- WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31.3.20 11. THEREAFTER, A QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) ON 19.9.2 011 ALONGWITH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,. 1961. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICES UNDER SECTION 142(1) & 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND FURNISHED INFORMATION CALLED FOR FROM TIME TO TIME ALONGWITH NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. AFTER EXAMINING THE ALL THE DOCUMENTS THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3)/153A MA KING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES. I) ADDITION OF RS. 1,28,89,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEX PLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 20 II) ADDITION OF RS. 1,80,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. III) ADDITION OF RS. 43,34,185/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. 15. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27 .12.2011, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.11.2013 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESEEE. 16. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 17. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REI TERATED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL AND REQUE STED THAT APPEALS OF THE REVENUE MAY BE ALLOWED BY CANCELLING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). TO SUPPORT HIS CASE, HE REITERATED THE WRITTEN SUBMISS ION AS MENTIONED ABOVE. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORD S AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY LD. DR. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. DR, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAME ARE ON THE DISTINGUISHED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HENCE, ARE NOT AP PLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT LD. FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE BY CONS IDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AN D ADJUDICATED THE 21 ISSUES IN DISPUTE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE RELE VANT FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 4.10.1 WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,28,89,00 0/-, THE AO HAS NOTED AS UNDER:- THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILE ANY DETAILS TO EXPL AIN THE CREDITS APPEARING IN BANK ACCOUNTS. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE LENDERS VIDE O RDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 16/12/2011, NO ONE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CREDIT TRANSACTIONS APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. NO ADDRESS OF THE LENDERS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED BY FURNISHING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. NO DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED JUSTIFYING THE ADVANCE AGAINST PROPERTY. 4.10.2 IN THE ABSENCE OF A REMAND REPORT ON THE ISS UE, I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS. IT IS SEEN FRO M THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FURNI SHED CONFIRMATIONS, ITR COPIES AND BANK STATEMENT OF THE LENDERS. EACH CONFIRMATION CONTAINED THE PAN OF THE LENDER. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE PART OF THE ASSESSMENT 22 FOLDER THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION ON THE SAME. FROM THE NOTING OF THE AO ON THE LETTER OF THE ASSE SSEE DATED 16/12/2011 AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER (COPY MADE AS ANNEXURE A TO THIS ORDER) IT IS OBSER VED THAT THE AO MENTIONS AS UNDER IN FOUR LINES: ORDER SHEET 16/12/2011 NONE WAS PRODUCED 4.10.3 THE AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO NEVER ASKED FOR ANY FURTHER DETAILS AND THIS IS ALSO EVIDENT FR OM THE NOTING OF THE AO AS ABOVE. HE HAS MERELY COME TO TH E CONCLUSION THAT NO ONE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE EVIDENCES WHICH WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH T HE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS TAKEN WERE FURNISHED BEFOR E THE AO WHICH ALSO CONTAINED THE PAN. ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE VERY APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOU NTS. SINCE NO FURTHER QUERY WAS RAISED BY THE AO, THE APPELLANTS AR MIGHT NOT HAVE SUBMITTED ARE DETAILS TO THE AO. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ALL THE DETAI LS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS 23 ALONG WITH THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REPORT ON THE SAME. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTE D THAT IT WOULD BE A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IF ADDIT ION IS MADE INSPITE OF PROVIDING COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE LENDERS AND THEIR CONFIRMATIONS. 4.10.4 THERE IS NO WAY TO REBUT THE CLAIM OF THE AR THAT THE AO HAS NOT RAISED ANY FURTHER QUERY AFTER RECEI VING THE CONFIRMATIONS ETC. FROM THE APPELLANT'S AR. THE RE IS NO RECORD TO SHOW THAT HE REQUESTED THE APPELLANT T O MAKE ANY FURTHER SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT GIVE TRUE PICTURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AS IT IS INCORRECT TO SAY THAT NO DETAILS OF THE CREDIT TRAN SACTIONS WERE FILED WHEN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER ITSELF CONTAI NS CONFIRMATIONS, BANK STATEMENTS, ITR COPIES OF THE LENDERS. DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE CONFIRMATIONS, BANK STATEMENTS, ITR COPIES SUBMITTE D BY THE AR HAVE BEEN FORWARDED TO THE AO WITH A REQUEST TO VERIFY THE SAME AND SUBMIT HIS REORT AF TER NECESSARY INQUIRIES. THE REQUIRED REPORT HAS NOT BE EN SUBMITTED. 4.10.5 I FIND THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS BEAR PAN OF TH E LENDERS. THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN ROUTED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. IN THIS BACKGROUND I DO NOT FIND ANY 24 MERIT IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE ULS 68. THE A O IS REQUIRED TO PROCEED AGAINST THE LENDERS IF THEY WER E FOUND TO BE WITHOUT ADEQUATE SOURCE JUSTIFYING THE LOANS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VERY. LITT LE HAS BEEN DONE BY THE AO TO TRANSFER THE ONUS BACK T O THE ASSESSEE IF HE WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH ANY MATTE R. THERE ARE NO EVIDENCES TO SHOW THAT HE WANTED TO APPELLANT TO LEAD FURTHER EVIDENCES TO SATISFY ANY OF HIS DOUBTS. IN THIS BACKGROUND THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,28,89,000/- MADE AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. 19. ON GOING THROUGH THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE L D. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY DETAILS TO EXPLA IN THE CREDITS APPEARING IN BANK ACCOUNTS. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQU IRED TO PRODUCE THE LENDERS VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 16/12/2011, NO ONE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED TO SUBST ANTIATE THE CREDIT TRANSACTIONS APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. NO ADDR ESS OF THE LENDERS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS HAVE NO T BEEN PROVED BY FURNISHING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. NO DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED JUSTIFYING THE ADVANCE AGAINST PROPERTY. IT WAS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED CONFIRMATIONS, ITR COPIES AND BANK STATEMENT OF THE LENDERS. EACH CONF IRMATION CONTAINED THE PAN OF THE LENDER. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE PART OF THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER 25 THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION ON THE SAME. WE FIN D THAT FIND THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS BEAR PAN OF THE LENDERS. THE TRANSACT IONS HAVE BEEN ROUTED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. IN THIS BACKGROUND LD. CI T(A) HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT THE AO IS REQUIRED TO PROCEED AGAINST THE LENDERS IF THEY WERE FOUND TO BE WITHOUT ADEQUATE SOURCE JUSTIFYING THE LOANS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VERY LITTLE HAS BEEN DONE BY THE AO TO TRANSFER THE ONUS BACK TO THE ASSESSEE IF HE WAS NOT SATISFI ED WITH ANY MATTER. THERE ARE NO EVIDENCES TO SHOW THAT HE WANTED TO AS SESSEE TO LEAD FURTHER EVIDENCES TO SATISFY ANY OF HIS DOUBTS. IN THIS BACKGROUND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,28 ,89,000/- MADE AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ACT ION OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE AND DISMISS THE GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 20. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE REVENUES APPEALS STAN D DISMISSED. ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO. 465-466/DEL/2014 (AYRS. 2 009-10 & 2010-11) 21. AS FAR AS ASSESSEES AFORESAID CROSS APPEALS A RE CONCERNED, SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEALS BY UPHOLDING THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY, HENCE, BOTH THE ASSESSEES APPEALS HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND DISM ISSED AS SUCH. 26 22. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE 4 APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS BY THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED IN THE AFORESAID MANN ER. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19/05/2017. SD/- SD/- [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 19/05/2017 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES