ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. M.L. Chhabra, New Delhi

ITA 4117/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 411720114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 25-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: MADAN LAL CHHABRA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund; Additional evidence; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRAMOD KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO. - 4 117 /DEL/201 3 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2 00 6 - 0 7 ) ITO, WARD - 40(3), B - BLOCK, PRATYAKSH KAR BAHWAN, DR. SPM CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI - 1100 02 . (APPELLANT) VS SH.M.L.CHHABRA, A - 206, PANCHSHEEL APPTT., PLOT NO. - 24, SECTOR - 4, DWARKA, NEW DELHI . P AN - A DCP C7225Q (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. SATPAL SINGH, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SH. MADAN LAL CHHABRA, AR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM TH E PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 0 4 . 0 4 .201 3 OF THE CIT(A) - XXX , NEW DELHI CHALLENGING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SAID ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND : - 1. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE. IN PURCHASE OF BOND OF NATIONAL HOUSING BANK BY ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT APPELLATE STAGE WITHOUT GRANTING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO IN CONTRAVENTION WITH RULE 46A O F IT RULES. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS A S EMANATING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT THE RETURN DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,12,665/ - WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 17.06.2006 WHICH WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS . I N VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE NO COMPLIANCE WAS SHOWN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) WHICH RETURNED WITH THE COMMENTS ADDRESSEE IS OUT OF INDIA AND HOUSE LOCKED . T HE N OTICE WAS SERVED BY WAY OF AFFIXTURE . SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE SAID NOTICE BY AFFIXTURE ALSO TH E AO RELYING UPON THE AIR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH HIM WHICH 2 I.T.A .NO. - 4117 /DEL/201 3 DISCLOSED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED BONDS OF NATIONAL HOUSING BANK OF RS.12,00,000/ - ON 22.02.2005 IT WAS CON CLUDED IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) BY THE AO THAT THE SOURCE REMAINED UNE XPLAINED , C ONSEQUENTLY RESULTING IN ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT. 3 . AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE WENT IN A PPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHEREIN RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME O F RECEIVING THE CERTIFIED COPY O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . RELYING ON THE SAME IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE NOTICE S STATED TO BE SENT U/S 143(2)/142(1) WERE NEVER RECEIVED AS THE ASSESSEE WA S OUT INDIA ON ACCOUNT OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA . REFERRING TO FACTS DEPOSED IN THE AFFIDAVIT IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY AS CONSUL GENERAL OF INDIA IN MEDAN FROM 2006 TO 2009 AS A RESULT OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WITH THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS . IN VIEW OF THE SAME A P RAYER FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIO NAL DOCUMENTS WAS MADE SO AS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF FUNDS QUESTIONED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN NATIONAL HOUSING BANK WAS OUT OF THE RECEIPT S OF SALE PROCEED S OF HOUSE PROPERTY BEARING NO. - 2047 A, BLOCK - D, PALAM VIHAR, GURGAON, HARYA NA OF RS.17,20,000/ - WHICH HA D BEEN PREVIOUSLY BOUGHT DURING THE FY - 199 8 - 99 AND THE INDEX COST OF WHICH CAME TO RS.6,50,049/ - . THE SALE PROCEED S OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY RELYING ON RELEVANT RECORD IT WAS SUBMITTED WAS CREDITED IN HDFC BANK ON 25.06.2005 VID E CHALLAN NO. - 0466622 AND CHEQUE NO. - 0007394 OF RS.5,50,000/ - AND RS.11,70,000/ - . IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE, F OLLOWING ENCLOSURES WERE PLACED B EFORE THE CIT(A): - 1. COPY OF BANK STATEMENT WITH HDFC BANK LTD. 2. COPY OF REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME. 3. COPY OF AFFID AVIT FILED BEFORE LD. ITO. 4. COPY OF PAID INCOME TAX CHALLAN OF RS.1,74,300/ - 5. COPY OF SALE DEED OF PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF PURCHASED. 6. COPY OF SALE DEED OF SAME PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF SALE. 3 I.T.A .NO. - 4117 /DEL/201 3 4 . CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES INCLUDING THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO ; THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION S ; SALE DEED, XEROX COPY AND BANK ACCOUNT COPY ETC, THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THAT INVESTMENT OF RS.12,00,000/ - IN NATIONAL HOUSING BANK WAS MADE OUT OF SALE PROCEED S OF GUR GAON PROPERTY WHICH WAS SOLD FOR RS.17,20,000/ - . WHILE COMING TO T HE SAID CONCLUSION HE TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS DEMONSTRATED FROM THE RELEVANT BANK ACCOUNTS AS IT HAD BEEN ROUTED THOROUGH THE BANKING CHANNELS. IN VIEW OF THE SAME THE ADDITION MADE WAS DELETED. 5 . AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING ASSESSEE PRESENT IN PERSON MOVED AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION REQUESTING FOR COPY OF THE DEPARTMENTAL GROUNDS. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY FROM THE BENCH THE FACTUAL POSITION ON RECORD QUA THE SOURCE OF FUNDS QUESTIONED WAS CONFIRMED BY HI M IT WAS FURTHER PLEADED THAT HE IS A RETIRED PERSON UNAWARE OF THE RAMIFICATION OF THE ISSUE UNDER QUESTION AND ALL FACTS KNOWN TO HIM HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY BROUGHT ON RECORD. SINCE IT IS A DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL, LD. SR. DR WAS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS THE GRIEVA NCE OF THE REVENUE. MR. SATPAL SINGH RELYING UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CONTENDED THAT THE EVIDENCES WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO WHICH WAS CONTRARY TO THE STATUTORY RULES . HOWEVER THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE PRESENT IN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING CO NFIRMED THE POSITION T HAT AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME HE WAS OUTSIDE INDIA AS A RESULT OF HIS SERVICE AND THE FACT THAT THE DEPOSIT WAS FROM THE SALE PROCEED S OF THE ERSTWHILE HELD GURGAON PROPERTY FROM WHICH THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN SOURCED WERE NOT DISPU TED BY HIM AND RELIANCE WAS MERELY PLACED UPON ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7 . A S STATED THE ASSESSEE PRESENT IN PERSON SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICES WERE NEVER RECEIVED BY HIM AS HE WAS OUT OF THE COUNTRY ON ACCOUNT OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTY DUE TO HIS EMPLOYMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS. THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IT WAS CONFIRMED WAS FROM THE SALE PROCEED S OF THE PROPERTY AT GURGAON HELD BY HIM IN 1988 - 89 FINANCIAL YEAR WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE 4 I.T.A .NO. - 4117 /DEL/201 3 HDFC BANK AND IT IS FROM THIS BANK ACCOUNT THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN NATIONAL HOUSING BOND. 8 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. BEFORE WE SET OUT THE SPECIFIC FACTS ON WHICH OUR CONC LUSION HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT, WE FIRST DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET OUT THE SPECIFIC RULE INVOKED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THEIR GROUND: - 46A. (1) THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)], ANY EVIDENCE, WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY, OTHER THAN THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER], EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, NAMELY : ( A ) WHERE THE [ASSESSING OF FICER] HAS REFUSED TO ADMIT EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED ; OR ( B ) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] ; OR ( C ) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL ; OR ( D ) WHERE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] HAS MADE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. (2) NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMITTED UNDER SUB - RULE (1) UNLESS THE [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] RECORDS IN WRITING THE R EASONS FOR ITS ADMISSION. (3) THE [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] SHALL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB - RULE (1) UNLESS THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] HAS BEEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY ( A ) TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE WITNESS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT, OR ( B ) TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR ANY WITNESS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. (4) NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS RULE SHALL AFFECT THE POWER OF THE [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] TO DIRECT THE PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENT, OR THE EXAMINATION OF ANY WITNESS, TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL, OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE INCLUDING THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT OR PENALTY (WHETHER ON HIS OWN MOTION OR ON THE REQUEST OF THE [ASSESSING OFFICER]) UNDER CLAUSE ( A ) OF SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 251 OR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTIO N 271.] 5 I.T.A .NO. - 4117 /DEL/201 3 8.1 . CONSIDERING THE CLEAR MANDATE OF LAW , THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT UNDER SUB - RULE (1) OF THE RULES 46A, THE CIT(A) HAS POWER TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE . THIS POWER IS CIRCUMSCRIBED BY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT IS TO BE EXERCISED AS SET OUT IN CLAUSE (A) TO (D) OF RULE (1) . H AVING IDENTIFIED THE SPECIFIC REASON MADE OUT FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE , THE CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO PASS A REASONED ORDER JUSTIFYING THE ADMISS ION OF THE SA ME AS PER SUB - RULE (2) RULE 46A. S UB - RULE (3) MANDATE S THAT THE SAME BE CONFRONTED TO THE AO. HOWEVER SUB - RULE (4) OF RULE 46A IS NON - OBSTANTE CLAUSE AND GIVES OVER RIDING POWERS TO THE COMMISSIONER APPEALS INTER - ALIA TO DIRECT THE PRODUCTIO N OF ANY DOCUMENT TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE . 8.2. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE BY WAY OF THE GROUND RAISED THAT THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE RENDERED NUGATORY AS PROVISIONS OF SUB - RULE (2) AND (3) OF RULE 46A HAVE BEEN VIOLATED HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE PECULIAR SET OF FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE REQUIREMENT TO RECORD REASONS FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER SUB - RULE (2) IN PRINCIPLE ARISES OUT OF ONE OF THE BASIC SETTLED LEGAL PRINC IPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE THAT THE POWERS VESTED IN AN AUTHORITY ARE NOT ARBITRARILY AND WHIMSICALLY EXERCISED. THE OCCASION TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE AUTHORITY IS WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF LAW AND THE POWER EXERCISED IS IN THE INTEREST OF JUS TICE CAN BE JUDGED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF REASONS AVAILABLE IN THE ORDER. THE ACTION OF THE AUTHORITY FOR EXERCISING A POWER VESTED IN HIM CANNOT BE LEFT TO MERE GUES S WORK WHICH WOULD BE A RESULT WH ERE REASONS FOR EXERCISING THE POWER ARE NOT SET OUT. REA SONS IN WRIT ING ARE PRINCIPALLY REQUIRED TO ENABLE THE SUPERIOR FORUMS TO SCRUTINIZE THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS SEEN THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SET OUT THE FACTS WHY THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED AND THOUGH HAS BEEN REMISS IN NOT SPECIFICALLY SETTING OUT THE CIRCUMSTANCE SET OUT IN SUB - RULE (1)(B) OF RULE 46A WHICH NECESSITATED THE ADMISSION OF THE EVIDENCE. THE FACT REMAINS THAT IT IS NOT IN DOUBT THAT THE PECULIAR FACTS WARRANTED SUCH AN ACTION, AS IT IS NOBODIES CASE THAT THE DISCRETION EXERCISED WAS WRONGLY EXERCISED AND THE 6 I.T.A .NO. - 4117 /DEL/201 3 EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED . THE MERE FACT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT SPECIFICALLY SET OUT THE OBVIOUS FACTUAL POSITION WHICH CONVINCED HIM TO TAKE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO OUR MINDS IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH GROUND IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE TO REMAND THE MATTER. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE CARELESSLY OR DELIBERATELY ENSURED THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO. THE ASSESSEE WHO IS NOW A RETIRED PERSON , AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE WITH GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS UNDISPUTABLY WAS OUTSIDE INDIA. THIS FACT IS BORNE OUT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF AS NOTICE RETURNED UNSERVED DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITH THE COMMENT ADDRESSEE IS OUTSIDE INDIA . CONSIDERING THE NEXT STEP WHEREIN VIOLATION IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE OUT NAMELY THE EVIDENCE SO TAKEN SHOULD BE CONFRONTED TO THE AO. THE FACT ON RECORD IS THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF AN AFFIDAVIT FILED WHILE OBTAINING THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. WE HAVE ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PLAC ED ON RECORD. ON CONSIDERING THESE IT IS SEEN THA T THE EVIDENCES SO CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF THE NOW RETIRED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE IS THE EVIDENCE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS OU T O F THE SALE PROCEEDS OF PROPERTY HELD BY HIM. WHICH FACTS HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN D ISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT SEE ANY PURPOSE IN CONFRONTING THE EVIDENCE SO CONSIDERED ONCE AGAIN TO THE AO. HAD THE EVIDENCE NOT BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO AND THE NATURE OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD NEEDED A D EEPER ENQUIRY IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES NORMALLY OUR INTERFERENCE FOR CORRECTING THE PROCEDURAL DEFECT WOULD HAVE B E E N WARRANTED . HOWEVER IN THE PECULIAR FACTS TO SO DIRECT TO CONFRONT THE EVIDENCE ALREADY AVAILABLE TO THE AO WOULD BE PAYING MERE LIP SERVICE TO THE RULE AND IGNORING THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. IT MAY NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO SET OUT THE WELL - ACCEPTED JURISPRUDENCE THAT RULES HAVE OF T BEEN DESCRIBED AS THE HAND MAIDEN OF JUSTICE AND EXIST FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE THAT JUSTICE IS DONE TO THE PART IES BY THE COURTS/TRIBUNALS. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DOUBT 7 I.T.A .NO. - 4117 /DEL/201 3 THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT/TRIBUNAL TO ENSURE THAT RULES EXISTING FOR JUSTICE DELIVERY SHOULD BE ADHERED TO. BEING CONSCIOUS OF THE WELL SETTLED LEGAL PRINCIPLES THAT RULES CANNOT BE SACRIFICED AT THE ALTAR OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE BUT TO LITERALLY ADHERE TO THE RULE IGNORING THE ALL PERVADING FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE SO CONSIDERED WAS ALREADY AVAILABLE TO THE AO TO OUR MINDS WAS NOT THE INTENTION BEHIND THE RULE. THE RULES AND PROCEDURES A RE THERE TO SECURE JUSTICE OR TO PUT IT NEGATIVELY TO PREVENT MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CONFRONTING A MATERIAL ALREADY AVAILABLE TO THE AO ON FACTS IS NOT WARRANTED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND EVIDENCES CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A) HAVE ALREADY BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF AN AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF OBTAINING THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS FACT RECORDED IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER HAS NOT BEEN ASSAILED BY THE REVENUE. FOR READY - REFERENCE, WE REPRODUCE PARA (III) TO (VI) FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER: - (III) IN THIS RESPECT, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED NEITHER ANY NOTICE U/S 143(2) NOR 142(1) AS THE ASSESSEE WAS OUT OF INDIA (A MENTIONED IN INCOME TAX ORDER) DUE TO THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EMPLOYED UNDER MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AS CONSUL GENERAL OF INDIA IN MEDAN FROM 2006 TO 2009. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME, THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT WHICH WAS FILED AT THE TIME OF RECEIVING OF CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FROM LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MR. O.P.NARULA IS BEING ENCLOSED. (IV) THAT THE ADDITION WAS BEING DONE DUE TO NON FURNISH OF S OURCE OF INVESTMENT IN NATIONAL HOUSING BOND OF RS.12,00,000/ - ON 22.10.2005, PURCHASED FROM HDFC BANK LTD, DWARKA SECTOR - 5, DELHI. (V) THAT THE SOURCE OF AFORESAID INVESTMENT IN NATIONAL HOUSING BANK IS MADE OUT OF RECEIPT OF SALE PROCEED OFF HOUSE PROPERTY BEARING NO.2047A, BLOCK D, PALAM V I HAR, GURGAON, HARYANA OF RS.17,20,000/ - WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY BOUGHT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1988 - 89, AND THE INDEX COST OF THE SAME CAME TO RS.6,50,049/ - . THE AFORESAID SALE PROCEED OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY IS CR EDITED IN HDFC BANK DATED ON 25.06.2005 VIDE CHALLAN NO. - 0466622 AND CHEQUE NO.0007394 OF RS.5,50,000/ - AND RS.11,70,000/ - . (VI) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED PERSON UNDER MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AS CONSUL GENERAL OF INDIA AND REMAINED PUT OF INDIA FOR HIS EMPLOYMENT. THE APPELLANT HAS NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE PROVISION OF CAPITAL GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PROPERTY. AS AND WHEN HE CAME TO KNOW THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX, HE IMMEDIATELY DEPOSITED THE RELEVANT INCOME TAX ALONGWITH THE INTEREST D UE FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF PROPERTY. AS THE REVISED RETURN CAN T SUBMITTED AT THIS TIME DUE TO TIME BAR PERIOD OF SUBMISSION OF RETURN THE COPY OF REVISED 8 I.T.A .NO. - 4117 /DEL/201 3 COMPUTATION OF INCOME ALONGWITH THE INCOME TAX PAID CHALLAN IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND CONS IDERATION. 8. 3 . TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE FACTS CONFRONTED TO THE AO HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY ANY EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT WHATSOEV ER AS THE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE NAMELY THAT THE DEPOSIT IN NATIONAL HOUSING BANK WAS FROM THE H DFC THE SPECIFIC BANK ACCOUNT WHEREIN SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY IN GURGAON (PURCHASED IN FY - 1988 - 89) WAS DEPOSITED BY THE SALARIED EMPLOYEE OF MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS WE HOLD THAT REMAND IS NOT WARRANTED. THUS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATE RIAL TO THE CONTRARY AND BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND CONSIDERED BY HIM , W E FIND NO MERIT IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL . ACCORDINGLY THE DEPARTMENTAL GROUND IS DISMISSED . THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES. 9 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 8 T H OF NOVEMBER 2014. S D / - S D / - ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2 8 / 11 /2014 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI