Sh. Sanjay Srivastava, Ghaziabad V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4350/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6736 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 25-11-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PEEYUSH SONKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained cash credit; Salary income; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 234B; 27; 148; 2; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4348 TO 4350/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1999 - 2000, 2000 - 01, 2003 - 04 SHRI SANJAY SRIVASTAVA, SI-23,SHASTRI NAGAR, GHAZIABAD (UP). PAN : ARCPS7780C VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 40 (4), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANJAY SRIVASTAVA, ASSESSEE REVENUE BY : SHRI PEEYUSH SONKAR, DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.43 48 & 4349/DEL/2010 RELATE TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271F OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) OF ` 5,000 EACH AND THEY ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DATED 16 TH MARCH, 2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 AND 2000-01. ITA NO.4350/DEL/2010 IS AN APPEAL DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DATED 16 TH MARCH, 2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04 IN RESPECT OF ORDER PASSED U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- ITA NO.4348/DEL/2010 1. THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271F OF RS.5,000/- IS AGAINST THE LAW AND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE HIS RETURN U/S 139 (1) OF THE ACT. 2. THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO.4348 TO 4350/DEL/2010 2 U/S 271F AND UPHELD BY LD. CIT (A) IS AGAIN ILLEGAL, BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ARE NOT SPEAKING, THE REPLY FILED WAS NOT CONSIDERED/ADJUDICATED BY HIM. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIA TE PRIOR UPHOLDING PENALTY OF RS.5,000/- IMPOSED U/S 271F OF THE ACT THAT THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE THE ILLEGAL AND IMPUGNED ADDITIONS MADE, PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY BEEN SET ASIDE AND RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE ITAT. 4 . THAT THE ASSESSEE ASSAILS HIS RIGHT TO AMEND, ALTER, CHANGE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS INSTANT APPEAL. ITA NO.4349/DEL/2010 1. THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271F OF RS.5,000/- IS AGAINST THE LAW AND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE HIS RETURN U/S 139 (1) OF THE ACT. 2. THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271F AND UPHELD BY LD. CIT (A) IS AGAIN ILLEGAL, BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ARE NOT SPEAKING, THE REPLY FILED WAS NOT CONSIDERED/ADJUDICATED BY HIM. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIA TE PRIOR UPHOLDING PENALTY OF RS.5,000/- IMPOSED U/S 271F OF THE ACT THAT THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE THE QUANTUM OF ADDITIONS MADE, IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS ALREADY PENDING FOR DISPOSAL BEFORE THIS HONBLE COURT. 4. THAT THE ASSESSEE ASSAILS HIS RIGHT TO AMEND, ALTER, CHANGE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS INSTANT APPEAL. ITA NO.4350/DEL/2010 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 24.12.07 IS AGAINST THE LAW AND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BECAUSE O F NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION AND RELIED UPON THE EXPLANATION GIVEN, MATERIAL ADDUCED IN SUPPORT OF AVAILABILITY OF CASH WITH HIM AS HIS ACCUMULATED ITA NO.4348 TO 4350/DEL/2010 3 SAVINGS OUT OF WHICH HE HAS GIVEN THE INITIAL AMOUNT O F RS.58,500/- AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF CAR. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE OF RS.58,500/ - ARE ENTIRELY BASED UPON HIS PRESUMPTION AND GUESS WORK ONLY AS SMELL OUT FROM HIS VIEW DRAWN AT PAGE NO.3 OF THE ORDER PASSED, AND NOT SUPPORTED ON ANY MATERIAL. 3. THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE OF RS.58,500/ - ARE FURTHER NOT CORRECT, BECAUSE OF NOT ADJUDICATING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN AND MATERIAL PRODUCED, FILED AND PLACED UPON RECORDS. 4. THAT THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B AND INITIA TION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AND 271F OF THE ACT, IS AGAI NST THE LAW AND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 5. THAT THE ASSESSEE ASSAILS HIS RIGHT TO AMEND, ALTER, CHANGE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS INSTANT APPEAL. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT, BUT IT WAS SEEN THAT THESE ARE VERY SMALL MATTERS AND THE ASSESSEE IN PERSON WAS PRESENT, THEREF ORE, WE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THESE APPEALS ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AFTER HEARING LD. DR AND THE ASSESSEE. SO FAR A S IT RELATES TO LEVY OF PENALTY OF ` 5,000/- EACH IN RESPECT OF ITA NOS.4348 & 4349/DEL/2010, IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE CO MPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS ARE AS UND ER:- A.Y. 1999-2000 WITH THESE REMARKS, INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSTT. YE AR 1999- 2000 IS COMPUTED AS UNDER:- 1. INCOME FROM SALARY AS PER SALARY RS.79,504/ - LESS : STANDARD DEDUCTION RS.26,475/ - RS.53,029/ - 2. ADDITIONS MADE A) ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT RS.1,30,000/ - TOTAL INCOME RS.1,83,029/ - . ITA NO.4348 TO 4350/DEL/2010 4 A.Y. 2000-01 WITH THESE REMARKS, INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSTT. YE AR 2000-01 IS COMPUTED AS UNDER:- 1. INCOME FROM SALARY AS PER SALARY RS.92,996/ - LESS : STANDARD DEDUCTION RS.30,000/ - RS.62,996/ - 2. ADDITIONS MADE A) ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT RS.1,36,500/ - B) ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED AND UNDISCLOSED EXPENDITURE/INVESTMENT ON PURCHASE OF HOUSE RS.3,00,000/ - RS.4,36,500/ - TOTAL INCOME RS.4,99,496/ - 3. IT IS SEEN THAT REGULAR INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BO TH THE YEARS IS ` 53,029/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 AND ` 62,996 /- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. BOTH THESE INCOMES ARE BELOW TH E TAXABLE LIMIT. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT ` 1, 83,029/- AND ` 4,99,496/- FOR THE REASON THAT ADDITIONS MADE O N ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE AND UNDISCLOSED EXPENDITURE/INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF HOUSE. THE PENALTY U/S 271F HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS FAILURE TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS PER HIS BONA FIDE BELIEF HIS REGUL AR INCOME WAS NOT TAXABLE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT UNDER AN OB LIGATION TO FILE THE RETURNS OF INCOME. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 TH ERE WAS CASH DEPOSITS OF ` 1,30,000/- IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HELD IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, GHAZIABAD. AFTER MAK ING THE PRELIMINARY INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATION BY ADIT, GHAZIABAD, IT WA S INFORMED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE AFOREMENTIONED BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.4348 TO 4350/DEL/2010 5 APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HIS STATEMENT W AS ALSO RECORDED ON OATH. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HIS FAMILY COMPRISES OF SELF, HIS WIFE AND TWO DAUGHTERS, STUDENTS OF 10 TH AND 4 TH STANDARDS AND ALSO THE MOTHER WHO WAS A FAMILY PENSION ER. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT WHAT PROP ERTY THE ASSESSEE IS OWNING, IT WAS STATED THAT THE ONLY ONE HOUSE NO.SI-23, SHASTRI NAGAR, GHAZIABAD WAS OWNED BY HIM AND THE SAID HOUSE WAS PURCHASED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000. THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WERE STATED TO BE IN THE VICINITY OF ` 5,000 TO ` 6,000. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS MADE BY HIM IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SOURCE OF ` 3 LAC PAID BY HIM TO SHRI RAJ PAL SINGH, FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSE WAS ` 1 L AC OUT OF HIS OWN FUND, ` 1 LAC WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY HIS FATHER IN CASH A FEW DAYS BEFORE MAKING THE PAYMENT OF PURCHASE OF HOUSE AND ANOTHER ` 1 LAC WAS RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER-IN-LAW WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH IN JULY, 1999. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED TO PRODU CE THE EVIDENCE FOR CREDIT WORTHINESS OF HIS FATHER AND FATHE R-IN-LAW, BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE SUCH EVIDENCE. THE ENTI RE AMOUNT INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PURCHASE OF HOUSE WAS EXPL AINED AS UNDER:- 1. RS.40,000/- WAS PAID AS BAYANA ON 04.05.1999 AS R EGARDS THE SOURCES IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT RS.18,000/- WAS OUT OF HI S PERSONAL SAVINGS AND RS.22,000/- HE RECEIVED FROM HIS WIFE S MT. SARITA SRIVASTAVA. 2. RS.1,00,000/- PAID AS ADVANCE FOR HOUSE ON 10.07.19 99 WAS WITHDRAWN FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT. 3. RS.90,000/- PAID AS PART OF ADVANCE ON 16.7.1999 WAS WITHDRAWN FROM BANK. 4. RS.40,700/- ON 24.08.1999 WITHDRAWAL FROM ABOVE ACC OUNT. 5. RS.30,000/- ON 27.08.1999 PAID OUT OF CASH IN HAND A ND RS.12,000/- LOAN TAKEN FROM SMT. SARITA SRIVASTAVA. ITA NO.4348 TO 4350/DEL/2010 6 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE ABOVE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN ASSESSED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHICH EXCEEDED THE TAXABLE LIMIT IS ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN PURCHASE OF HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE INVESTMENT I N THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED SUCH CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IT IS A CASE OF LEVY OF PENALTY A ND THE BELIEF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE IS NOT UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO FILE THE INCOME-TAX RETURN DUE TO HIS BELOW TAXABLE INCOME CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A NON- BONA FIDE BELIEF. THIS CONSTITUTE BONA FIDE BELIEF O F THE ASSESSEE THAT HIS INCOME IS NOT LIABLE TO TAX AND IS BELOW TAXABLE L IMIT AND, THEREFORE, HE IS NOT UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO FILE THE RETURN. T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271F ARE NOT ABSOLUTE AS IN THE SAID SECTION T HE WORD MAY IS USED. SECTION 273B ALSO INCLUDED SECTION 271F AND, A CCORDING TO THE SECTION 273B, NO SUCH PENALTY WILL BE IMPOSABLE TO A PERSON OR AN ASSESSEE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR ANY FAILURE REFERRED TO INTER ALIA IN SECTION 271F IF HE PROVES THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SUCH FAILURE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE BONA FIDE BELIEF O F THE ASSESSEE CONSTITUTE REASONABLE CAUSE AS BY MAKING THE ADDITION O N ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME BEING EITHER DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OR INVESTMENT IN THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WHICH WERE EXPLAIN ED BY THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH NOT ACCEPTABLE BY THE REVENUE. CONSIDE RING ALL THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT PENALTY HAS WRONGLY BEEN IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND IT HAS WRONGLY BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE CIT (A). THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF ` 5,000/- EACH FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 1999-2000 AND 2000-01 ARE DELETED AND THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED . 5. NOW, COMING TO ITA NO.4350/DEL/2010, THE COMPUTA TION OF INCOME MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS AS UNDER:- ITA NO.4348 TO 4350/DEL/2010 7 WITH THESE REMARKS, INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS COMPUTED AS UNDER:- 1. INCOME FROM SALARY AS PER RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 FORM-16. RS.111,214/- 2. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. RS.58,500/ - TOTAL INCOME RS.1,69,714/ - 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS NOTICED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A MARUTI CAR F OR A SUM OF ` 2,99,500/-. THE INITIAL AMOUNT OF ` 67,747/- PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS EXPLAINED OUT OF HIS PAST, PERSONAL, ACCUMULATED SAVIN GS AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT WAS RAISED AS LOAN OF ` 2,40,000/- FR OM ICICI BANK THE EMI OF WHICH WAS STARTED FROM 1 ST JANUARY, 2003. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE STATEMENT OF LOAN SANCTIONED BY THE ICIC I BANK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT F OR PURCHASE OF CAR AMOUNTING TO ` 58,500/- AND THE SAME WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. CIT (A) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION A GAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED, HENCE, IN APPEAL. IT WAS ALSO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HIS WIFE CONTRIBUTED A SUM OF ` 45,000/-, TO HER HUSBAND OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF HER JEWELLERY FOR WHICH THE R ECEIPT WAS ALSO SHOWN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND COPY OF WHICH WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A). ACCORDING TO THAT VOUCHER, THE WIFE O F THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD JEWELLERY TO M/S NEW AMBEY JEWELLERS, 56, GAUPURI , GAUSHALA ROAD, GHAZIABAD ON 22 ND NOVEMBER, 2002 AND RECEIVED A SUM OF ` 45,000/- ON 22 ND NOVEMBER, 2002 AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF ` 12,956/- ON 25.11.2002 AS THE TOTAL JEWELLERY WAS SOLD FOR A CO NSIDERATION OF ` 57,996/-. THE PAYMENT OF ` 58,500/- WAS MADE TO THE CAR DEALER ON 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2002. LD. CIT (A) HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOW ANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE B Y THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. THE ITA NO.4348 TO 4350/DEL/2010 8 REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE FOUND TO BE V ALID IN LAW AS PER THE DETAILS CONTAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . I HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AND I AM CO NVINCED THAT THE A.O. HAS FOLLOWED THE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE AND ACCORDINGLY I HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE AS RIGHT & V ALID IN LAW. THE ONLY ISSUE OF ADDITION MADE IS OF A SUM OF RS.58 ,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME INVESTED IN THE PURCH ASE OF CAR BY THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BROU GHT OUT IN HIS ORDER THE DETAILED REASONING FOR ADDING THE ABOVE SUM AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. OUT OF THE TOTAL INVOICE PRICE OF RS.2,99,500/- OF THE MOTOR CAR, THE APPELLANT COULD EXP LAIN ONLY PART OF THE AMOUNT. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT FURNISHED NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE SOURCES FOR THE BALANCE SUM PAID IN CASH TOWARDS PURCHASE OF MOTOR CAR. THIS SUM OF RS.58,500 /- WAS PAID TO THE DEALER ON 30.11.2002. THE APPELLANT HAS NO T EXPLAINED THE SOURCE FOR THIS PAYMENT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN ASSESSING THE SAID SUM AS U NDISCLOSED INCOME. I FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER & THE ADDITION MADE IS UPHELD. 7. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED, HENCE, IN APPEAL. 8. RELYING UPON THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND CIT (A), IT WAS PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AN AMOU NT OF ` 58,500/- WAS EXPLAINED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (A). THE SAID AMOUNT WAS CONTRIBUTED BY THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE ON AC COUNT OF SALE OF HER JEWELLERY. HE STATED THAT THE CAR WAS PURCHASE D FOR THE REASON THAT HIS MOTHER BECAME MENTALLY ILL AND TO COVER UP THE EXIGENCY OF HER HOSPITALIZATION THE VEHICLE WAS REQUIRED. THE S OURCES WERE EXPLAINED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT (A) AN D ADDITION HAS WRONGLY BEEN MADE AND SUSTAINED. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND CIT (A) IT WAS PLEADED BY LD. DR THAT THE ADDIT ION HAS RIGHTLY BEEN SUSTAINED AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) SHOULD BE UPHEL D. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND NO REASO N FOR REJECTING THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND CIT (A) ACCORDING TO WHICH THE AMOUNT OF ` 58,000/- WAS REPRESENTED BY ITA NO.4348 TO 4350/DEL/2010 9 THE SALE PROCEEDS OF ORNAMENTS BY THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE . NOT ONLY THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE PARTICULARS OF THE PARTY TO WH OM THE GOLD ORNAMENTS WERE SOLD, BUT THE DATES WERE ALSO GIVEN. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE EVIDENCE P RODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (A) WAS FALSE O R FABRICATED. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, WE FIND N O JUSTIFICATION IN THE ADDITION UPHELD BY THE CIT (A). WE DELETE THE ADDI TION. 11. THE OTHER GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CONSEQUEN TIAL IN NATURE WHICH IS REGARDING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B. SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271-C AND 27 1F, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THOSE GROUNDS ARE PREMATURE AND COULD N OT BE ADJUDICATED UPON AS, IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE ARE DE ALING WITH THE QUANTUM ONLY. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.11.20 10. SD/- SD/- [A.K. GARODIA] [I.P. BANSAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 30.11.2010. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES