Virender Singh, Rohtak V. ITO, Rohtak

ITA 497/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74337 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMEER SHARMA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Peak credit
• Section: 142(1); 234B

Judgement Text

ITA NO.497/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 497/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 VIRENDER SINGH, VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, S/O SHRI WAZIR SINGH, WARD 1, ROHTAK. H.NO. 870, SECTOR 3, ROHTAK. (PAN: BDHPSO675J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI A RUN KUMAR JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAME ER SHARMA, SR. DR O R D E R PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A), ROHTAK DATED 03.12.2 010 IN ITA NO. 336/RTK/2009-10 FOR AY 2007-08. 2. GROUND NO. 1 AND 4 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE GENERAL I N NATURE WHICH NEED NO ADJUDICATION AND WE DISMISS THE SAME. REMAINING GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER:- 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS ERRE D IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MA KING AN ADDITION OF RS.17,63,318/- REPRESENTING DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS, TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.497/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 2 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B AMOUNTING TO RS.34,245/- AND RS.1,82,642/- RESPECTIVELY. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS AP PEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT IS A PROPERTY DEALER DERIVING INCOME FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS.99 ,000 UNDER THE CAPTION ESTIMATED NET COMMISSION FROM PROPERTY DEALING WI THOUT MENTIONING ANY OTHER DETAILS AS WAS REQUIRED IN ITR-4. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MENTIONED ANY FIGURE OF GROSS RECEIPTS, GROSS PROFIT AND EXPENSES WHEREB Y THE NET PROFIT AS DECLARED IN THE RETURN HAD BEEN ARRIVED AT. ON SPE CIFIC QUERY FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN A S TO HOW THE NET PROFIT FIGURE RETURNED WAS ARRIVED AT. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH CE NTRAL BANK OF INDIA, ROHTAK BRANCH, CREDIT ENTRIES OF RS.3,81,000 WERE A VAILABLE AND THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH HDFC BANK, ROHTAK BRANCH HAD TOTAL CREDIT ENTRIES AGGREGATING TO RS. 22,74,690 WERE FO UND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) AND COMPLETE DETAILS OF ALL ACCOUNTS IN BA NK/POST OFFICE WERE SHOWN BUT IN THE FIRST REPLY, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLO SE ANY BANK ACCOUNT AND ITA NO.497/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 3 INTEREST INCOME WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN R EPLY TO THE SUBSEQUENT NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT HE IS HAVING SB ACCOUNT WITH CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND HDFC BANK. THE ASSESSEE FILED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT, AN AGREEMENT DATED 13.4.2006 WITH SHRI ANAND SINGH FOR THE SALE OF PLOT NO. 44, SECTOR 2, ROHTAK FOR RS.10 LAKH AND RECEIPTS OF RS. 7 LAKH AS ADVANCE AND AS PER SAID AGREEMENT, BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 3 LAKH WA S TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE CASH FLO W STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOTHING BUT AN EYEWASH WHEREIN ENTRIES WERE ONLY NARRATED AND CASH DEPOSITED AND CASH WITHDRAWN. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT CREDIT FOR RS. 6 LAKH ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF TWO PLOTS BY THE ASSESSEE AND LOAN OF RS.2,92,372 FROM HDFC BANK FOR PURCHASE OF HONDA CITY CAR WAS GIVEN. HENCE, OUT OF TOTAL CREDIT ENT RIES OF RS.26,55,690 FOR BOTH THE BANKS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO RS.2,92,372 AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.17,63,318 WAS BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ACTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) WHICH WAS ALSO DISMISSED WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS:- ITA NO.497/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 4 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND THE SUBMISSION S MADE BY THE AR. NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. THE APPELLANT DID NOT FURNI SH THE BASIS OF ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT AT RS. 99,000/-ALONGWITH THE GROSS RECEIPTS, EXPENSES ETC. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. MERELY BY CONTENDING THAT NO BOOKS OF A/ C HAVE BEEN MAINTAIN ED; THE APPELLANT CAN NOT ESCAPE IN FURNISHING THE DETA ILS OF RECEIPTS, EXPENSES AND THE BASIS ON WHICH THE NET P ROFIT HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT. THEREFORE, THE AO CAME TO THE RIGHT CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS OF HIS BUSINESS. IT WOULD BE WORTH WHILE TO NOTE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCLOSED ANY BA NK A/ C IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC QUERY BY THE AO. IT WAS ONLY A FTER THE AO OBTAINED THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND CONFRONTED THE APPELLANT, DID HE PROCEED TO EXPLAIN THE ENTRIES. T HE ALLEGED CASH FLOW STATEMENT IS NOTHING BUT AN INVER TED BANK STATEMENT AS RIGHTLY NOTED BY THE AO SINCE THE ENTRIES EXPLAINED ARE ONLY 'CASH DRAWN FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE' AND 'CASH DEPOSITED OUT OF CASH IN HAND'. THIS SORT AND FORM OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT IS NOTHING BUT AN EYE WASH WHICH CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON. IN FACT, IT CAN NOT BE TERMED AS CASH FLOW STATEMENT AS UNDERSTOOD IN COMMON PARLANCE. 4.1 COMING TO THE ISSUE OF GIVING CREDENCE TO THE ALLEGED AGREEMENT FOR SALE WITH SH. ANAND SINGH AND RECEIPT OF RS. 7.00 AS ADVANCE, THE ABNORMALITIES N OTED BY THE AO IN THE SAID SALE AGREEMENT LIKE EXCEPTION ALLY HIGH AMOUNT OF ADVANCE WHEN COMPARED TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION, EXCEPTIONALLY LONG PERIOD FOR REGIST RY OF MORE THAN TWO YEARS ETC. ARE MATERIAL AND RELEVANT. FURTHER, IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AS TO WHY SH. ANA ND SINGH HAVING CASH OF RS. 26.31 LACS HAS TO DIFFER T HE PAYMENT OF A BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 3.00 LACS TO MOR E THAN TWO YEARS. CURIOUSLY THE SAID PLOT WAS NOT SOL D TO SH. ANAND. SINGH BUT TO SOME BODY ELSE. IT WAS FURT HER CONTENDED THAT THOUGH THE PLOT WAS SOLD FOR RS. 10. 00 LACS AS PER THE AGREEMENT, ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6,63,000/- WAS MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEE D, ITA NO.497/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 5 WHICH IS AGAIN AN ABNORMAL SITUATION. IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS RIGHT IN CONCLUDI NG THAT THE ALLEGED SALE AGREEMENT WITH SH. ANAND SINGH IS NOT GENUINE AND IT IS AN ARRANGED AFFAIR TO FABRICATE EXPLANATION FOR THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, THE CASH FL OW STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT CAN NOT BE GIV EN ANY CREDENCE IN VIEW OF THE OBSERVATIONS NOTED ABOV E. 4.2 THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT AR E NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE CASE LAW O F CIT VS LAUL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (SUPRA) IS REGARDING TREATING THE LOANS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON THE GRO UND THAT CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED AND IN CIT VS DIAMONDS PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD THAT AO IS NOT PERMITTED TO EX AMINE THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CREDITO RS IS GENUINE AND THE CREDITORS IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHI NESS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN BRINGING TO TAX THE UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK A/C OF RS. 17,63,318/- IS UPHELD AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. NOW, THE EMPTY HANDED ASSESSEE IS AGAIN IN THE S ECOND APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WITH THE MAIN GROUND AS REPRODUCED HE REINABOVE. GROUND NO.2 7. APROPOS GROUND NO.2, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE O RDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.17,63,318/- REP RESENTING DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IGNORED CASH FLOW STATEM ENT, AGREEMENT TO SELL ITA NO.497/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 6 DATED 13.04.2006 EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF MR. ANAND SINGH AND REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 8.4.2008 AND OTHER S UPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE AR ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRO PERTY DEALER WHO HAS TO RECEIVE AND PAY VARIOUS AMOUNTS ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENTS I.E. PURCHASER AND SELLER OF THE PROPERTIES, THEREFORE, IF FOR THE SAK E OF SECURITY, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IS KEPT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT FOR SOME TIME AND SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS WITHDRAWN AND GIVEN TO THE INTENDED PERSONS OR SELL ERS ON BEHALF OF THE PURCHASERS OF THE PROPERTY, THEN THE AMOUNT OF THES E DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ALTERNATIVELY, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, IF FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE AMOUNTS OF DEPOSITS IN THE SB ACC OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE DESERVE TO BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN ALSO ONLY AN AMOUNT OF PEAK CREDIT MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEA R BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH CLEAN HANDS BECAUSE FIRST, THE ASSESSE E DENIED THAT HE HAD SB ACCOUNT WITH HDFC AND CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, ROHTAK BRANCH. ITA NO.497/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 7 SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT OUT RELEVANT STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS FROM THE RESPECTIVE BRANCHES, THEN THE ASS ESSEE ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT HE HAD THESE TWO SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNTS. THE D R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETAIL OF RECEIPTS , DEMANDS AND EXPENSES TO SUPPORT THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.99,000 AS PER ITR -4 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE CASH FLOW STATEMEN T, AGREEMENT TO SELL WITH MR. ANAND SINGH AND REGISTERED SALE DEED WAS MERELY AN EYEWASH AND THESE DOCUMENTS WERE AN ARRANGED AFFAIR TO SUPPORT THE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN THE SB ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS A ND CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFUL PERUSAL OF RECORD, INT ER ALIA, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY , WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED DETAILS OF BOTH THE BANK ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE FIRST INSTANCE. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT OUT RELEVANT DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNTS AND CASH DEPO SITS FOUND THEREIN, THEN THE SURRENDERED ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE EXISTENCE OF THESE ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE C LEARLY OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 6 LAKH ON AC COUNT OF SALE OF PLOTS AND ITA NO.497/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 8 RS.2,92,372 ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN FOR CAR BUT BALANCE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.17,63,318 WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS AN D THE SAME WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE FIRST APPE AL, THIS ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) DISMISSING THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY MADE AN ATTEMPT TO JUSTIF Y DEPOSIT OF RS. 7 LAKH WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED F ROM SHRI ANAND SINGH WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE ENTERED NOT AN AGREEMENT OF SALE OF LAND AND SHRI ANAND SINGH PAID HIM RS. 7 LAKH IN CASH IN ADVANCE. AS PER THIS AGREEMENT DATED 13.4.2006 PLOT NO. 444, SECTOR 2, ROHTAK WAS SOLD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 10 LAKH AND THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS. 7 LAKH IN CASH AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF SALE AGREEMENT. ON PERUSAL OF SALE DE ED DATED 8.4.2008, WE CLEARLY OBSERVE THAT THE SAID PLOT NO. 444 WAS SOLD TO SMT. SARLA DEVI W/O SHRI KULDEEP SINGH ONLY FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,63,00 0 AFTER TWO YEARS OF EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT TO SELL. THE COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED AS PER THE PREVAILING CI RCLE RATE AND HAS BEEN SHOWN ON LOWER SIDE AS INSISTED BY THE PURCHASER. THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE EVEN BY A MAN OF ORDINARY PRUDENCE B ECAUSE AN AGREED AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LAKH WOULD BE REDUCED TO RS.6,63,0 00 AFTER A LAPSE OF TWO YEARS ON THE INSISTENCE OF PURCHASER AND THE SELLER WOULD AGREE TO SELL HIS PLOT ON A LOWER SIDE. THE CASH FOLLOW STATEMENT FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ITA NO.497/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 9 SIMPLY A REPRODUCTION OF BANK STATEMENT WHICH DOES NOT REFLECT NECESSARY DETAILS HOW THE MONEY WAS DEPOSITED, IN WHICH CIRCU MSTANCES MONEY WAS WITHDRAWN AND AGAIN DEPOSITED WITH THE BANK. THERE FORE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW RIGHTLY DISBELIEVED SALE AGREEMENT, SALE DEED AND CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 12. IN VIEW OF FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE HOLD THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.17,63,318/- WAS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE EXPLANA TION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND TENABLE TO JUSTIFY AND EXPLAIN THESE UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SB ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. AT THE SAME TIME, WE TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THIS LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT IN THIS SITUATION, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BECAU SE THE POSSIBILITY OF ROTATION OF SAME CASH AMOUNT AS DEPOSITS AND WITHDR AWALS CANNOT BE RULED OUT AND, IN THIS SITUATION, THE PRINCIPLE OF PEAK C REDIT ADDITION IS APPLICABLE. 13. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS IN QUESTION FOR BOTH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS, THE SAM E FUNDS ARE CIRCULATED AND HENCE ONLY PEAK CREDIT SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX . ON THIS ALTERNATIVE ITA NO.497/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 10 ARGUMENT AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, LD. DR TH OUGH NOT CONCEDED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ULTIMATELY AGREED THA T ONLY PEAK CREDIT IS TO BE TAXED, HENCE, WE HOLD THAT ONLY PEAK CREDIT APPEARI NG IN THE RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS TH ERE IS ROTATION OF THE SAME FUNDS. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATIO N OF PEAK CREDIT TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR BRINGING THE SAME TO TAX. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROVIDE DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. GROUND NO.3 14. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONSEQUENTIAL T O THE MAIN GROUND NO.2. SINCE WE HAVE RESTORED THE MAIN ISSUE TO THE FILE O F ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO COMPUTE THE PEAK CREDIT FOR THE PURPOS E OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES, THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF NOTICE U/S 234B AND 234A OF THE ACT AS PER RESULT OF GROUND NO.2. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SPOSED OF IN THE TERMS AS INDICATED ABOVE AND DEEMED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.497/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 11 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.03.2014. SD/- SD/- (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) (CHANDRAMOHAN GAR G) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 14 TH MARCH, 2014 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR