ITO, Muzaffarnagar V. Shri Manish Kumar, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 5134/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 513420114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 133(6); 68; 69

Judgement Text

ITA NO.5134/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5134/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ITO, WARD 1 (1), MUZAFFARNAGAR. VS. MANISH KUMAR, PROP., M/S MANISH KUMAR & COMPANY, 194/1, BRAHMPURI, MUZAFFARNAGAR. PAN : AQZPK8150C ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SA NJAY MALIK, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. KEYUR PATEL, SR. DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS IS DEPARTMENTS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AG AINST THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2011, PASSED BY THE CIT (A), MUZAFF ARNAGAR, CONTENDING THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF ` 34,51,095/-, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY DEBTORS. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS AVAILABLE FROM THE RECORD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM TRADING O F MEDICINES IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M / S MANISH KUMAR & CO. RETU R N DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 1, 37,750 / - WAS FILED ON 10 . 11 . 2008. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT ITA NO.5134/DEL/2011 2 PROCEEDINGS , IT WAS GATHERED BY THE A. O. THAT THERE WERE SUBSTANT IAL DEBTORS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.51 , 44,212/-. THUS THE A.O. ISSUED ENQUIRY LETTERS FOR VERIFICATION TO 24 PARTIES. IT WAS GATHER ED BY THE A.O. THAT IN MOST OF SUCH CASES ENQUIRY LETTERS WERE RECEIV E D BACK UNSERVED AND, I N SOME CASES, IT WAS MENTIONED BY THE PARTY THAT THERE WAS NO BUSINESS TR A NSACTIONS DURING THE YEAR . 2.1 THE A.O. F URTHER VIDE NOTICE DATED 04 . 08 . 2010 INTIMATED THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NOTICES SENT U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO SEVEN DEBTORS EXCEEDING RS . 50, 000/ - WERE RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED AS UNDER:- S.NO . NAME OF THE DEBTOR AMOUNT 1. M / S R.B. DRUG AGENCIES RS. 52,407/ 2. DR. V. P. SINGHAL R S .1,01,995/ 3. M / S SURESH & COMPANY RS,1,55,922/ 4. M / S ANAND MEDICAL STORE R S .2,30,934/- 5. M / S.PERFECT HEALTH CARE RS. 89,608/ 6. M / S RETECH FORMULATION (P) LTD RS. 71,357/ 7. M / S GADAXO PHA R MACEUTICALS R S .1,29,242/ R S .8,31,465/- 2.2 IN RESPONSE , THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WOULD FUR NISH COMPLETE ADDRESS AND CONFIRMATION LETTERS OF THE PARTIES. IT WAS FUR THER CONTENDED THAT SOME CONFIRM A TIONS WERE STILL AWAITED , THEREFORE , THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE A. O . TO WAIT FOR THE REPLY FROM SUCH PARTIES AND IN CASE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE PARTIES, IT WOULD PROVIDE REQUISITE D ETAILS. 2.3 THE A. O . VIDE NOTICE DATED 31 . 08 . 2010 INTIMATED THE ASSESSEE THAT ENQUIRY LETTERS U / S 133(6) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED TO THE CREDITORS AND DE BTORS AT THE ADDRESS FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE . HOWEVER, IN THE F OLLOWING CASES ITA NO.5134/DEL/2011 3 NEITHER THE ENQUIRY LETTERS WERE RECEIVED BACK UNSERV ED NOR CONFIRMATIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. S.NO. NAME OF THE DEBTOR AMOUNT 1. M / S NARAIN DISTRIBUTORS RS. 77,925/ 2. M / S KHA NU JA MEDICINE SUPPLIERS RS. 77,984/ 3. M / S SHAKTI MEDICAL AGENCIES R S . 72,010 / 4. M / S CHAURASIAY PHARAMA R S . 1 ,10,432/- 5. M / S YASHODA HOSPITAL (P) LTD RS. 70,0001 6. M / S LIMED HEALTH CARE (P) LTD. R S .1,10,432/ 7. M / S ATUL PHARMA RS.2,85,000/ - 8. M / S RELIABLE MEDICALS RS. 68,488/ 9. M / S MEDIX LAB INDIA ( P ) LTD RS.4,98,650 / 10. M / S RAMAN M EDICAL AGENCY RS. 60,136/ 11. J.P. PHARMACEUTICALS RS.3,06,048/ 12. M / S RODED PHARM A CEUTICALS (P) LTD, RS.4,25,407/- RS.21 , 58,029/- 2.4 HENCE IT WAS INFERRED BY THE A. O . THAT THE DEBTORS WERE NOT TRUE AND CORRECT. IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE A. O . THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE NOTICE DA TED 04 . 08 . 2010 WAS ALREADY INFORMED THAT IN SEVEN CASES OF DEBTOR S THE ENQUIRY LETTERS SENT ON 23 . 07 . 2010 BY SPEED POST HAD BEEN RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED. THUS IT WAS HELD BY THE A. O . THAT THE DEBTORS WERE NOT VERIFIABLE. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN MENTIONED BY THE A. O . THAT IN THE CASE OF DEBTOR M/S KRISHNA DISTRIBUTORS THE BALANCE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WA S AT RS.65,509/- BUT AS PER PARTY'S BOOKS THE SAME WAS SHOWN AS NIL. IN THE CASE OF M / S RAMAN MEDICAL AGENCY THE PARTY HAD INTIMATED THAT N O BUSINESS WAS DONE DURING THE YEAR. ITA NO.5134/DEL/2011 4 2.5 IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE , IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE DEBTORS COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE NOT GENUINE SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICES WERE NEITHER COMPLIED WITH NOR RECEIVED BA C K UNSERVED. REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING BALANCE OF THE DEBTOR M / S KRISHNA DISTRIBUTORS AND M/S RAMAN MEDICAL AGENCY, IT WAS REQUESTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO EXAMINE THE AFORESAID PARTIES WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES. 2.6 THE A. O . VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 20. 09 . 2010 REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEBTORS AND CRE DITORS TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH DEBTORS/CREDITORS. IN CASE OF NON SERVICE OF E N QUIRY LETTERS, THE A. O REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH PRESENT ADDRESSES . 2.7 THE ASSESSEE VIDE REPLY DATED 26 . 10 . 2010 FURNISHED COP I ES OF CONFIR M ATIONS OF THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:- (I) R.B. DRUG AGENCIES, KANPUR (II) DR. U .P. SINGHAL, GHAZIABAD (III) M/S SURESH & CO., AGRA (IV) ANAND MEDICAL STORE, AGRA (V) PERFECT HEALTH CARE, AGRA (VI) RODEC PHAR M ACEUTICALS (P) LTD., GHAZIABAD (VII) GADAXO PHARMACEUTICALS, GHAZIABAD 2.8 THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED COPY OF BILL AND BILITY O F M / S KRISHNA DISTRIBUTORS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CLOSING BALANCE AS P ER HIS BOOKS WAS ACTUALLY AT RS.65,509/- AS AGAINST NIL BY THE AFORESAID PARTY. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT WAS INCORRECT TO SAY THAT NO BUSINESS WAS D O NE WITH THE DEBTOR M / S RAMAN MEDICAL AGENCY. T HE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED BILL OF M / S AJAY MEDICAL AGENCIES WHO INTIMATED THAT NO TRANSACTION W AS MADE DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 28 . 10 . 2010 SUBMITTED COPIES OF A CCOUNT S FOR A.Y. 2009-10 OF THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:- ITA NO.5134/DEL/2011 5 (I) M / S NARAI N DISTRIBUTORS (II) MIS KANUJA MEDICINE (III) M / S SHAKTI MEDICAL AGENCY (IV) M / S YASHODA HOSPITAL (V) M / S CHAURASIA PHARMA (VI) M / S LEMED HEALTH PVT. LTD. (VII) M / S ATUL PHA RMA (VIII) M / S SRI RAM MEDICAL AGENCY (IX) M / S RAMAN MEDICAL AGENCY (X) M / S KRISHNA DISTRIBUTORS A.Y.2010-2011 AS THERE WAS NO TRANSACTION IN A.Y. 2009-10. 2.9 THE. A. O . A F TER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT HELD AS UNDER:- (I) M / S KRISHNA DISTRIBUTORS COPY OF SALE IN VOICE DATED 20.06 . 2007 FOR RS. 6 5,509 / - FILED. ACCORDING TO THE A. O . THIS DID NOT CONFIRM THE BALANCE AS ON 31 . 03 . 2008. THE DELIVERY OF GOODS WAS AT SITE OF THE OFFICE AND NOT BY COURIER AS WAS EVIDENT FROM THE INVOICE ITSELF. ( II ) M / S SHRI RAM MEDICAL AGENCY RS.66,259 / - THE BALANCE WAS FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND NOT FOR A.Y.200 8-09 ACCORDING TO THE A. O . THIS DID NOT CONFIRM THE BALANCE AS ON 31 . 03 . 2008. ( III ) M / S AJAY MEDICAL AGENCY RS.3,96,092/ - COPIES OF SA L E INVOICE ISSUED HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. ITA NO.5134/DEL/2011 6 ACCORDING TO THE A. O . THIS DID NOT CONFIRM THE BALANCE AS ON 31 . 03 . 2008. 2.10. FURTHER FOR THE FOLLOWING R E ASONS DEBIT BALANCES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE HELD BY THE A. O . AS NOT TRUE AND CORRECT. (I) THAT DURING THE PERIOD 04 . 08 . 2010 TO 28 . 10 . 2010 THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OBTAIN CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE DEB T ORS AND FURNISH THE SAME. (II) THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED BY FILING THE COPIES OF ACC OUNT IN 10 CASES THAT BUSINESS STILL CONTINUED. THEN WHAT PRE V ENTED HIM TO OBTAIN FROM THESE DEBTORS CONFIRMATIONS AS ON 31 . 03 .2 008. (III) THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH AFRESH ADDRESS IF CH ANGED. H OWEVER, HE CHOSE NOT TO FURNISH THE AFRESH ADDRESSES. (IV) THE ASSESSEE DID NOT STATE THAT HE HAD ANY DISPUTE WITH ANY OF THE DEBTORS RESULTING IN NON-COOPE R ATION IN FURNISHING CONFIRMATION EITHER TO HIM OR TO THE DEPARTMENT. 2.11 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS IT WAS HELD BY THE A . O . THAT THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY DID NOT OBTAIN AND FURNISH CONFIRMED C OPIES OF ACCOUNT OF THE DEBTORS. ACCORDING TO THE A. O . , IT WAS NOT A CASE WHERE THE BUSINESS WAS CLOSED DOWN AND THE DEBTORS WERE NOT COOPERATING. THE BEST COURSE OF INTRODUCTION OF UNDISCLOSED FUNDS WAS TO SHOW BOGUS DEBTO RS. THE REALIZATION OF SALE PROCEEDS IN CASH WITHOUT ANY LIMIT WAS NOT PR OHIBITED UNLIKE THE PURCHASES. THE BOGUS DEBTOR ALSO HELPED THE BUSINESSMEN TO INTRODUCE CASH WHENEVER REQUIRED BY SHOWING REALIZATION OF DEBT. F ROM THE ABOVE REASONS IT WAS HELD BY THE A. O . THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE GARB OF BOGUS DEBTORS. THUS THE SUNDRY DEBTORS TOTALING TO RS.34,51,095/- WERE HELD AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 3. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS, WHICH WERE FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER VIDE LETTER ITA NO.5134/DEL/2011 7 DATED 28.06.2011, ASKING FOR A REMAND REPORT. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FURNISHED REMAND REPORT VIDE LETTER DATED 28.06.201 1. THE ASSESSEE FILED A REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. IT WAS AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THIS, THAT THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. C IT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION CORRECTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY DEBTORS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FULL FACTS OF THE CASE; THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE REQUEST MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPO RT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ADDITION BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN MADE U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CONTENDING THAT THE SUNDRY DEBTORS CANNOT BE ADDED EITHER U/S 68 OR U/S 69 OF THE ACT AND THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CORRECTLY DELETED THE ADDITION WRONGLY MADE. 6. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PA RTIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADDED THE SUNDRY DEBTORS ON THE GROUND THAT NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133 (6) O F THE ACT IN SOME OF THE CASES REMAINED UNSERVED AND SOME OF THE NOTICES NEIT HER RETURNED UNSERVED, NOR WAS ANY COMPLIANCE MADE IN PURSUANCE TH EREOF. IN SOME OF THE CASES THE DEBTORS HAD INTIMATED THAT THERE WAS NO B USINESS TRANSACTION DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE AL LEGED DEBTORS WERE BOGUS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE GARB OF SUCH BOGUS DEBTORS. IT HAS EVER BEEN THE STAND OF THE A SSESSEE THAT ALL THE DEBTORS WERE GENUINE AND THERE WERE, DEFINITELY, BUSI NESS TRANSACTIONS WITH SUCH DEBTORS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS OF THE DEBTORS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHERE THERE WERE NON-C OMPLIANCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT SUMMON THE PARTIES, FOR WHICH, THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY MADE A REQUEST TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER; AND THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO.5134/DEL/2011 8 HELD THE DEBTORS TO BE BOGUS WITHOUT CONDUCTING NECESSA RY INQUIRIES. THE LD. CIT (A), WHILE ASKING FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE A SSESSING OFFICER, HAD SPECIFICALLY ASKED HIM TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION OF BOGU S SUNDRY DEBTORS AS CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. IN THE REMAND REPORT, AS OB SERVED BY THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER INDIRECTLY ADMITTED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT HAVING BEEN WRONGLY APPLIED. HE, HOWEVER, SOUGHT TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT AND SOUGHT THE A DDITION TO BE TAKEN AS HAVING BEEN MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 O F THE ACT, NONE OF WHICH WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT (A). 7. THE DEPARTMENT MAINTAINS THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) SHOULD HAVE EITHER INVESTIGATED THE MATTER HIMSELF OR SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DO SO AND THAT THE MATTER REQUI RES TO BE REMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION OF THE PURCHASES. 8. WE, HOWEVER, DO NOT FIND OURSELVES AT ONE WITH THE LD. DR. OBVIOUSLY, SUNDRY DEBTORS CANNOT BE ADDED EITHER U/S 68 OR U/S 69 OF THE ACT, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DEBIT ENTRIES IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SO MUCH SO, EVEN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ELOQUENT IN THIS MATTER, WHICH REPORT IS A REPORT OF ADMISSION, IF AT ALL, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41 (1) OF THE ACT COUL D HAVE BEEN SOUGHT TO BE INVOKED. HOWEVER, AS PER THE REMAND REPORT ITSELF, EV EN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41 (1) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE. SO FA R AS REGARDS THE ISSUE OF VERIFICATION OF PURCHASES, AS CORRECTLY POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN VERIFIED, AS IS EVIDENT FROM A PERUSAL OF PAGE 16 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 9. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CORRECTLY OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS WH ILE CORRECTLY DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE:- IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ADDITION IN APPELLANT'S INCOME COULD NOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF APPREHENSIONS AS DONE BY THE A.O . AT THE MOST THESE APPREHENSIONS MAY BE A 'LEAD' FOR FURTHER INVES TIGATION SO-AS-TO ESTABLISH THE ACTUAL FACT. THE A.O. HAS NOT CARRIED OUT A NY INVESTIGATION ITA NO.5134/DEL/2011 9 ON SUCH LINES. IF IT IS PRESUMED BY HIM THAT THE SUNDR Y DEBTORS OF RS.1,23,16,915/- BEING A SPECIFIED PERSON COULD HAV E WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE BALANCES, THE PURCHASES SHOULD HAVE BEE N GOT VERIFIED BY HIM. CONTRARY TO IT, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE DISCREPA NCY NOTED BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES. FURTHER, APPELLANT'S SAL ES ARE SUBJECTED TO. VAT AND THE A.O. HAS ACCEPTED ALL THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS, BILLS AND VOUCHERS. THE SALES FIGURE HAS NOT BEEN DISTURBED AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) HAVE NOT BEEN INVOKED, RATHER IN THE RE MAND REPORT THE A.O. HAS EMPHASIZED THE SAME. NO. ATTEMPT. WAS MADE BY THE A.O. TO GET THE SALES FIGURES VERIFIED FROM THE COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT. IT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE SALES FIGURES AS DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE A.O. NOW REMAINS THAT INSTEAD OF SUNDRY DEBTORS, THE AP PELLANT SHOULD HAVE SHOWN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT AS 'CASH-IN-HAND' IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND THUS SHOULD HAVE PAID WEALTH-TAX ON IT. THE A.O'S S UGGESTION, THOUGH LOOKING ROSY FROM HIS ANGLE, COULD ONLY BE IM PLEMENTED IF SUCH FACT IS ESTABLISHED ON RECORD. THE ONUS OF PROVING IT LIES WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND SUCH APPROACH COULD NOT BE TAKEN MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT THE OUTSTANDING BALANCES OF SUNDRY DEBTORS COULD NOT BE VERIFIED. BE IT AS MAY, SINCE 'CASH-IN-HAND' COULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME IN APPELLANTS HANDS BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION EITHER U /S 68 OR U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. DOES NOT S TAND. IT IS NOTICED THAT THERE ARE INHERENT CONTRADICTIONS IN A. O'S APPROACH IN GIVING TREATMENT TO THE CLOSING BALANCES OF SUNDRY DEBTOR S. THE OPENING BALANCES WHICH COULD BE VERIFIED FROM THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ADDED IN CURRENT YEAR'S INCO ME AS DONE BY THE A.O. FURTHER, AS POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT IN THE W RITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND REJOINDER, EVEN THE REPLIED OF THE PA RTIES WERE NOT TAKEN IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE WHICH HAVE BEEN ELABORATE D IN THE PRECEDING PARAS WHICH ARE NOT REPEATED AGAIN INDIVID UALLY. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER FURNISHED CONFIRMED COPIES OF ACCOUNTS, COPIES OF BILLS, G,R., COPY OF DETAILS OF VAT, LETTER S FROM TRANSPORTER REGARDING CONFIRMATION OF GOODS DELIVERY WHICH HAD S HIFTED THE 'ONUS' FROM ASSESSEE ONTO ASSERTED BY THE A.O. IN HIS ASSESS MENT ORDER. UNLESS THE A.O. IS ABLE TO CONTROVERT SO MANY DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCES PLACED BY THE APPELLANT ON RECORD AND IN ABSENCE OF R EQUISITE ENQUIRIES MADE; IT WOULD NOT BE PROPER TO SUSTAIN ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OR U/S 69 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF DEBTORS AT RS.34,51,095/-. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND DISCUSSION MADE, IT IS HELD THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION AT RS.34,51,095/- U/S 68 OR U/S 69 OF THE ACT. THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. GROUND NO.2 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.5134/DEL/2011 10 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR WHATSOEVER IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMEN T IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05.12.201 3. SD/- SD/- [ G.D. AGRAWAL ] [A.D. JAIN] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 05 TH DECEMBER, 2013. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.